Anyone else worried about Ebola?

[Pat Barry]

Just today:

The number of new cases being diagnosed in west Africa has doubled in the past two weeks
A nurse in Spain, contacted Ebola from a priest who died in Spanish hospital

Also


Dallas situation seems out of control
Dallas victim from Liberia has gotten worse rather than better now that he is being treated, finally
All the experts are saying basically that we shouldn't worry


I'm more worried everyday that this thing will go from 1 case in USA to 100 within couple weeks

Too much travel freedom, too long of a incubation period, not a positive early detection method, not an effective treatment plan for lots of victims, etc.

Anyone else worried?

[Brett Luna]

You have far more to fear from the anti-vax nutters.

[Wade Lippman]

Or meteorites...

[paul cottingham]

Not even remotely. If it was airborne, then I would be fretting. Ive never had a blood or fluid borne disease, even afterworking in a kitchen. So I dont give it a seconds thought. My wife, on the other hand....

[Pat Barry]

i
have doubt that they really understand its transmission. For example - how can they be SURE that it is not airborn? I just think they are over-selling their knowledge.

Lets assume though, that you are not worried. I can appreciate that. What will it take to make you worried?

[Mark Bolton]

What I found interesting was the report that even the agencies in Africa state that any individual showing symptoms could simply take a handful of tylenol and get past the fever checks at the airports. Its hard to tell how many people are just wanting to get out of the region at any cost and in a rash of poor judgement are taking their, and others, lives into their own hands.

[paul cottingham]

Sure they understand it. Other, more robust strains *may* have been airborne. Its a matter of how robust it is. Like the way AIDS isnt robust, so it must be transferred by fluids. So I dont worry. It will take a lot more than a controlled illness in Dallas to start freaking out.

[Phil Thien]

Something is different this time around. I have some theories but will keep them to myself for now.

I'm not buying into the "you have nothing to worry about."

I'm not obsessing about it, but I'm certainly not dismissive about it, either.

[Phil Thien]

Its a matter of how robust it is. Like the way AIDS isnt robust, so it must be transferred by fluids.

35-million people in the world now infected with AIDS, it is the #1 infectious killer world-wide, with approx. 36 million dead.

And Ebola is much more contagious than AIDS.

[Scott Shepherd]

They say it isn't airborne, but there are some unexplained items at this time. Like how does a camera man for NBC get it? How many camera men you know they get bodily fluids on them when filming about deadly viruses? Maybe he did something that caused it, and that's very possible, but someone's got some explaining to do. Maybe to start, they could explain how they said there wasn't anything to worry about and then 5 days later took over that guys apartment complex all suited in Hazmat gear, full tilt.

Right now, their actions don't match their words. What's that mean? I have no idea. Not too worried about it, but paying attention to it.

[paul cottingham]

I'm not dismissive, I'm just not worried. Ebola symptoms cant be abated by a handful of tyenol, either so getting on a plane with it would be no simple matter. If it hasn't killed or at least infected all of subSaharan Africa, it clearly is not as infectious as even AIDS. Being alarmist doesnt help anything. Hey, I'm not an epidemiologist, so who cares what I think?

But remember a health professional descibed Ebola as the "Kardashian of diseases" because it gets way more attention than it deserves or merits.

[Mark Bolton]

I'm not dismissive, I'm just not worried. Ebola symptoms cant be abated by a handful of tyenol, either so getting on a plane with it would be no simple matter. If it hasn't killed or at least infected all of subSaharan Africa, it clearly is not as infectious as even AIDS. Being alarmist doesnt help anything. Hey, I'm not an epidemiologist, so who cares what I think?

But remember a health professional descibed Ebola as the "Kardashian of diseases" because it gets way more attention than it deserves or merits.

I dont think anyone is saying that a handful of tylenol will take away all the symptoms but rather the only definitive check the airlines have is fever. Any fever reducer would get someone with minimal/initial symptoms past any preliminary checks. Anyone screening airline passengers is not going to be expected to be an epidemiologist. They will simply have a series of go-no go checks. At this point it seems in the hot zone a detectable fever is the only "no go" for getting on a plane.

[Pat Barry]

That is one aspect that makes you wonder. The other is that they rely a lot on someone filling out a form truthfully. How will they know if the answers are truthful. Seems very very risky. I wish they could just take a quick blood draw, run a quick test and say with positivity that you are clean or infected.

[Jim Matthews]

Ebola also immobilizes most of it's carriers, before they can contact many people.

This is a crippling disease that very quickly incapacitates the victim.
It's readily preventable, with simple sanitary precautions.

It's more a threat to the Indian Peninsula and South east Asia
than North America.

It's prevalent near the Ebola river, where clean water is a luxury.

While it's outrageous that someone was permitted to travel out of Liberia,
after assisting a known Ebola victim, you can bet the travel restrictions
are coming. This disease flares, and each time it retreats to the
fauna that it doesn't kill, in the jungle.

What we can hope for is food aid to the places where people depend on "bush meat",
but it's likely to lead to intentional deforestation to eradicate the vector.

http://www.popsci.com/article/science/why-ebola-isn%E2%80%99t-global-health-emergency%E2%80%93-least-not-way-you-might-think

[David Weaver]

i
have doubt that they really understand its transmission. For example - how can they be SURE that it is not airborn? I just think they are over-selling their knowledge.

Lets assume though, that you are not worried. I can appreciate that. What will it take to make you worried?

If it was aerosol, all of those people in the slums would be dead. They live too close to each other and there's apparently a lot of misinformation going on in the zones with a lot of ebola. If this were influenza or something, it would be far more severe.

It's not that contagious compared to some things, even though it's very infectious once you have it.

[Pat Barry]

Ebola also immobilizes most of it's carriers, before they can contact many people.

This is a crippling disease that very quickly incapacitates the victim.
It's readily preventable, with simple sanitary precautions.

It's more a threat to the Indian Peninsula and South east Asia
than North America.

It's prevalent near the Ebola river, where clean water is a luxury.

While it's outrageous that someone was permitted to travel out of Liberia,
after assisting a known Ebola victim, you can bet the travel restrictions
are coming. This disease flares, and each time it retreats to the
fauna that it doesn't kill, in the jungle.

What we can hope for is food aid to the places where people depend on "bush meat",
but it's likely to lead to intentional deforestation to eradicate the vector.

http://www.popsci.com/article/science/why-ebola-isn%E2%80%99t-global-health-emergency%E2%80%93-least-not-way-you-might-think
Jim, I think that recent news has cast considerable doubt on the idea that it is readily preventible and also that it quickly incapacitates its victims quickly (its incubation period is up to 21 days - that's not quick to me).

[Scott Shepherd]

I turned on the radio in my car while driving from job to job a couple days ago and it was a guy that was a CEO of a major drug company. He was fairly upset at all the misinformation going on. He said this is NOT Ebola. He said the actual strain of Ebola is the nastiest thing on the face of earth and has a 100% fatality rate. He said it turns your whole body to liquid, bones and all, in 48 hours. There is no treatment. He said the Russians and USA tried to weaponise it many years ago and both abandoned it because once used, there was no way to stop it from wiping out the planet.

He said the only way they contained it was sealing off entire villages and letting it kill everyone there.

He said this isn't Ebola, it's what they called a sister strain of it, but it's not Ebola, if it was people's bodies would be turning to liquid in days and that's not what's happening. He also said real Ebola is airborne, that's why it was so nasty. For him to say it's the worst thing ever known to exist on the planet stressed how terrible it is.

He also called what's going around now by it's proper name but I can't recall it.

[Pat Barry]

If it was aerosol, all of those people in the slums would be dead. They live too close to each other and there's apparently a lot of misinformation going on in the zones with a lot of ebola. If this were influenza or something, it would be far more severe.

It's not that contagious compared to some things, even though it's very infectious once you have it.
You are bringing up a very good point about the aerosol type of transmission. Still, you wonder why the doctors and care givers take all the precautions they do if it is truly not possible to be airborne.

[David Weaver]

Well, if someone sneezes saliva onto you, or vomits on you, then you're in trouble. Or if you walk around and accidentally touch a hand full of live virus.

It's like the dentists with the face shields now. I never remember seeing that as a kid. I guess they don't want the chance of blood borne pathogens getting into their eyes.

[Sean Troy]

In regards to Ebola, this seems pretty weird: http://www.naturalnews.com/046290_Ebola_patent_vaccines_profit_motive.html

[Jim Matthews]

I don't know where you're getting your news feed.

"You can't believe everything you read on the internet."
- Abraham Lincoln, Vampire hunter

It's passed from an afflicted person, as they begin to die.
It can also be contracted by consuming improperly cooked wild game "bush meat".

It's like many contagious diseases, it spreads quickly in places with poor hygiene
and carries a justifiable horror among those that prefer "magic" to germ theory.

Soap, water and proper cooking of food do wonders to eradicate infectious disease.

Most of those afflicted, including the unfortunate soul in Texas, contracted the disease
while caring for someone they love - without the benefit of gloves, disinfectants or modern medical training.

Feel free to indulge in conspiracy theories, if you like.

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/transmission/index.html

[Jason Roehl]

I turned on the radio in my car while driving from job to job a couple days ago and it was a guy that was a CEO of a major drug company. He was fairly upset at all the misinformation going on. He said this is NOT Ebola. He said the actual strain of Ebola is the nastiest thing on the face of earth and has a 100% fatality rate. He said it turns your whole body to liquid, bones and all, in 48 hours. There is no treatment. He said the Russians and USA tried to weaponise it many years ago and both abandoned it because once used, there was no way to stop it from wiping out the planet.

He said the only way they contained it was sealing off entire villages and letting it kill everyone there.

He said this isn't Ebola, it's what they called a sister strain of it, but it's not Ebola, if it was people's bodies would be turning to liquid in days and that's not what's happening. He also said real Ebola is airborne, that's why it was so nasty. For him to say it's the worst thing ever known to exist on the planet stressed how terrible it is.

He also called what's going around now by it's proper name but I can't recall it.

http://courses.bio.indiana.edu/Z620-Hardy/Ebola%20virus/Ebola%20virus.pdf

Didn't find anything on a disease that causes total liquefaction of the body.

[Pat Barry]

Jim, I get my news from CBS, CNN and other such doubtful sources, so yes, please question them freely. In the end, thats good for everyone. As far as "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire hunter", I wasn't aware that was a reliable source.

Let me ask you if you think that the Ebola strain we are dealing with can be passed via mosquito or biting fly? If what it takes is bodily fluid, that seems a likely way to pass the disease, much like malaria I think it was.

I do agree, that in places like west Africa where hygiene is less than desirable (due to lack of clean water for example) then containing a disease like this is impossible. But, take a look at the good old USA and men in public restrooms, I'd hazard a estimate that more than 1/3 don't wash their hands - there you go for disease spreading mechanism right here. Makes you sick just thinking about it.

[David Weaver]

Jim, I get my news from CBS, CNN and other such doubtful sources, so yes, please question them freely. In the end, thats good for everyone. As far as "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire hunter", I wasn't aware that was a reliable source.

Let me ask you if you think that the Ebola strain we are dealing with can be passed via mosquito or biting fly? If what it takes is bodily fluid, that seems a likely way to pass the disease, much like malaria I think it was.

I do agree, that in places like west Africa where hygiene is less than desirable (due to lack of clean water for example) then containing a disease like this is impossible. But, take a look at the good old USA and men in public restrooms, I'd hazard a estimate that more than 1/3 don't wash their hands - there you go for disease spreading mechanism right here. Makes you sick just thinking about it.

It doesn't survive that long outside of a person's body unless the temperature is low. That's probably why sterilization is fairly easy (light bleach solution).

[Scott Shepherd]

http://courses.bio.indiana.edu/Z620-Hardy/Ebola%20virus/Ebola%20virus.pdf

Didn't find anything on a disease that causes total liquefaction of the body.

What he called in for, and was upset about, was that people are not using the right terms and they are coining the phrases against the wrong disease. He said Ebola is deadly and has a 100% fatality rate. He said what people are calling Ebola now is Marburg, which is does not have a 100% fatality rate. He was really hacked off at the media and why they keep making claims it's Ebola and not Marburg, and how they were just rewriting scientific facts that weren't accurate. He said Marburg is a sister strain of Ebola. The guy sounded like he was in his 60's and he really appeared to know his history about the disease from working around it for decades. He was a doctor, as well as the CEO of some drug or medical company.

He was very credible and sounded like he knew more about what he was talking about than anyone else I've seen on the news, but maybe he's wrong. I've tried to find the interview online, hoping it was archived somewhere, but since I didn't pay attention to his name at the time, and I don't even know what show it was on (don't listen to a lot of radio at any given time), it's hard to find.

Me? I have no idea. I'm not a doctor, lucky for all of you :)

[David Weaver]

Marburg is different and is not what the current group of ebola sufferers have. Ebola also does not appear to have a 100% fatality rate in any strain that I can see. wiki lists the 5 viruses that are credited with Ebola Virus Disease, and one of them is airborne. They also state that one of the ebola strains has been seen in an airborne virus before (it wiped out a bunch of primates in a quarantine near DC), but the humans exposed to it did not contract it in that case.

Sometimes people get on TV or the radio and want to prove that they know something esoteric to try to build their own credibility, but it doesn't really further the discussion at all.

[Phil Thien]

So here is a question: Why did Ebola blow up this time? Past outbreaks were more limited and confined (both time and space) and in a way that made them even a little more frightening, previous outbreaks quickly wiped out half a village or two, and then vanished.

Why are things different this time?

[Jason Roehl]

I saw the Wikipedia article, too, David. I suspect you're right about the guy Scott heard on the radio--there are plenty of people vying for attention.

I have a few contacts with people who regularly go to or occasionally live in Liberia, so I've gotten some first-hand information on the conditions there--less since the outbreak as the people I'm closest to are unable to go back to Liberia. The other contact is a Liberian who lives in Nigeria, but is in contact with his home village. 20+ of his extended family have died.

Pat-I've noticed that, too, about men's restrooms. It's nasty, but in Liberia, people urinate and defecate openly in the middle of the street (that's from a close friend who has done mission work there). Much of Monrovia's living conditions are downright disgusting. The country as a whole was only just beginning a hint of recovery from their 20-ish years of civil war. The Ebola outbreak has definitely set them back, and violence or even war may not be far off.

[Scott Shepherd]

Marburg is different and is not what the current group of ebola sufferers have.

That's where he disagrees with you. He said that's exactly what they have. The quick searches I saw, showed Ebola having as high as a 90% fatality rate, so that's not too far off what he was saying. I've heard about 4-5 people now saying that true Ebola is the wickedest disease on the planet and ever known to man.

[Jason Roehl]

So here is a question: Why did Ebola blow up this time? Past outbreaks were more limited and confined (both time and space) and in a way that made them even a little more frightening, previous outbreaks quickly wiped out half a village or two, and then vanished.

Why are things different this time?

Perhaps there was some chance travel of an infected person from a village to a more populated area that didn't happen before. People in West Africa aren't very mobile overall, and especially not in small, rural villages.

[Scott Shepherd]

There's also plenty of documentation online that Ebola does turn all your organs to liquid. Just to be clear, this wasn't a "paid to be on radio" talking head, this guy was a caller, who was upset because the radio host repeatedly used the wrong phrases and terms. He didn't give his name or company, publicly, but said he did so to their screener so they could verify his credentials, so he didn't get any "credit" for his position, as no one knows who it was except the call screeners.

[David Weaver]

That's where he disagrees with you. He said that's exactly what they have. The quick searches I saw, showed Ebola having as high as a 90% fatality rate, so that's not too far off what he was saying. I've heard about 4-5 people now saying that true Ebola is the wickedest disease on the planet and ever known to man.

Unless every physician who ever read wikipedia and didn't edit it is wrong, ebola is not aerosolized in general. It also doesn't have a 100% fatality rate. The EBOV (the actual ebola virus) is summarized as having an 83% fatality rate on wiki, the other 4 viruses that cause Ebola (the disease) are listed with lower fatality rates. It is not aerosolized and Wiki lists it as the virus in general that's being seen in west africa. Not just EVD, but this particular virus. It also says that transmission is by lack of precautions or needle pricks, etc.

For the guy on the radio to say something like that and assume that nobody has looked at the virus in question under a microscope given the current outbreak is pretty ridiculous. (marburg, by the way, has a similar range of fatality rates - wiki lists it at 23-90%, depending on the outbreak). I am not a doctor, of course. These are pretty simple facts, though.

(there is always someone on the radio claiming to know something nobody else knows, from chiropractors claiming that all diseases are a function of food/nutrient deficiencies and subluxations to people peddling stock tips. It's not a whole lot unlike faith healing scams, ghost stories and professional wrestling promos - it's a matter of whatever it takes to get some publicity and draw in listeners to sell ads).

Ebola virus (EBOV) Formerly known as Zaire virus, or Zaire ebolavirus, has the highest case-fatality rate, up to 90% in some epidemics, with an average case fatality rate of approximately 83% over 27 years. There have been more outbreaks ofEbola virus than of any other species. The first outbreak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola_virus_disease#1976) took place on 26 August 1976 in Yambuku (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yambuku).[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebolavirus#cite_note-7) Mabalo Lokela, a 44‑year-old schoolteacher, became the first recorded case. The symptoms resembled malaria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaria), and subsequent patients received quinine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinine). Transmission has been attributed to reuse of unsterilized needles and close personal contact. The virus is responsible for the 2014 West Africa Ebola virus outbreak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_West_Africa_Ebola_virus_outbreak), with the largest number of deaths to date.

[Scott Shepherd]

Unless every physician who ever read wikipedia and didn't edit it is wrong, ebola is not aerosolized in general.


Well, we don't know, do we? Since we have no idea what strains people are talking about, we have no idea. He might be talking about a strain that is different than the one that's listed on "wikipedia" (not exactly the best place to find accurate information, but assuming it's correct). All I'm saying is that guy said more things that sounded credible than anyone else I've heard. He talked in detail about the weapons programs of Russia and the USA and how he was around when all that was being developed. He named villages where they lost the entire town, he named places and the techniques they used to shut off the village and how they just let everyone die because there is no cure. He talked about a lot of things in great detail, hardly seemed like he was winging it and just making stuff up to make himself look smart. He was also an epidemiologist, and spoke in great detail about the differences in what's being seen and Ebola.

In my opinion, they could both be right. There could be a strain that's less deadly and it's what's commonly referred to as "Ebola" and there could be the strain he's talking about (which he said is 100% airborne) and it does fit the things he's said. Neither one has exclusivity on the truth, it's quite possible both things are true. For him to say it was the most horrific thing known to mankind doesn't exactly sound like we're talking about the same thing, so maybe both are true, and they are different strains. I think everything he said, about the villages, the deaths, the techniques can all be proven (had I known I was going to have to recall them, I would have paid more attention). I suspect their is plenty of proof that the US and Russia tried to weaponize it as well.

[Jerome Stanek]

There's also plenty of documentation online that Ebola does turn all your organs to liquid. Just to be clear, this wasn't a "paid to be on radio" talking head, this guy was a caller, who was upset because the radio host repeatedly used the wrong phrases and terms. He didn't give his name or company, publicly, but said he did so to their screener so they could verify his credentials, so he didn't get any "credit" for his position, as no one knows who it was except the call screeners.

He gave his credentials to the screener just like predators give theirs to twelve year old girls. I can look up a name and give it to someone on the phone and they could call and verify that yes this person ha all the credentials that I claim.

[David Weaver]

Wikipedia is well read and edited on factual information like this. It's not quite so great when it comes to corporate summaries (because they seem to be edited by people who have interest in trying to turn business summaries into an advertisement) or anything divisive.

This is a pretty simple issue. The current outbreak is not just EVD, it is the actual ebola virus. You can bet someone has confirmed that in a multitude of different ways. This guy you're referring to was on the radio, and i didn't hear anything about him confirming that he has viewed samples of the virus from patients. But you mention he said the "real" ebola is aerosolized, and it is not. A strain of it from south asia was, but nobody (people) exposed actually got it.

You mentioned that he said 100% of patients from the real ebola virus die from it. They do not. They haven't historically (83%) and in this case where it's confirmed that it's the ebola virus and not marburg, it's less than that.

It'd be interesting to know what his name was. This is a good case of checking this you hear on radio/tv/internet before you put too much stake in a single person's accounting or opinions of something.

(I'll bet the US and russia, and china, and you name it have tried to weaponize just about everything you can think of, from anthrax to alligator pee. It would surprise me if they didn't try to weaponize ebola).

Just as a second source, I went to the mayo clinic's site, and their message is "stop worrying about ebola". Transmission is direct contact with bodily fluids (caretakers and people preparing bodies), with no evidence of any insect transmission, etc and no mention of aerosolizing.

[Scott Shepherd]

He gave his credentials to the screener just like predators give theirs to twelve year old girls. I can look up a name and give it to someone on the phone and they could call and verify that yes this person ha all the credentials that I claim.

Wow, just wow. So you paint someone on the radio as the same as a sexual predator of 12 year olds? That's a stunning statement.

A convicted felon is capable of telling the truth. Just because they are a felon doesn't mean everything that say for the rest of their life is incorrect.

All I did was say what I heard on the radio. I don't know who he was or if it was credible, I do know that he gave some very specific information that lead me to believe he knew what he was talking about. More so than people posting about it on a forum like their are doctors. Who's right? I have no idea. As previously stated, I'm not a doctor. I did watch M*A*S*H a lot when I was a kid. What I do know is that I have watched the story change repeatedly enough in this case to know that we aren't being told the truth. When the story changes every 2 days, then someone's not being honest.

[David Weaver]

I don't know who he was or if it was credible, I do know that he gave some very specific information that lead me to believe he knew what he was talking about.

That's more a matter of speaking style about something we know little about than it is necessarily about substance. It is the mark of a con man to be able to stay one step ahead of their mark. that's not necessarily the situation here (a con), but nevertheless, con men make a living convincing people that they are authentic. So do people selling books that contain a lot of opinion and quasi-information or subjectivity. Whether it's medicine or musical instruments or life insurance.

[Pat Barry]

More news - 3 more Spanish hospital workers quarantined due to concerns over Ebola exposure. Yesterday it was the one nurse, first ever diagnosed as having contacted the disease out of west Africa.
and
"The American journalist with Ebola who arrived at a Nebraska hospital today believes that he may have gotten infected when he got splashed while spray-washing a vehicle where someone had died from the disease"
also
"“Most times, when people get it, there’s some kind of defining moment when they have been in close contact with the body fluids of somebody who had it,” Geisbert said" Note - Geisbert "tests Ebola drugs and vaccines at the University of Texas Medical Branch"

What bother me is the idea of most of the time there is something to point to as the cause (but not all the time).

[ray hampton]

will this disease spread from the drinking water ? what nation was the villages that was target for a wipe-out In ?

[David Weaver]

will this disease spread from the drinking water ? what nation was the villages that was target for a wipe-out In ?

No. contact with bodily fluids of someone, and the virus survival outside of the body is not particularly long in most cases. You can google it. It's a few minutes on a room temperature surface, but much longer on a surface if the temperature is close to zero.

[David Weaver]

some

It's all at this point. They're all addicted to putting stories up with sensationalized information and misleading titles to get clicks and listeners. Until people start writing them and saying "i'm not going to start listening or watching until you base yourself in a reasonable reality and don't use misleading titles", they're going to do it.

I guess they're going to do it as long as they get more clicks.

[Brett Luna]

I had another reply half composed when it occurred to me that the presumption will be that I'm lying...with me being in the Government 'n all. Another one bites the (non-saw) dust, I guess.

[Larry Browning]

I try not to worry about things, especially the things I have no control over. Worrying is a complete waste of time, there has never been a single problem in the history of man that has ever been solved by worrying about it. So how does worrying about it make things better?
The authorities are not asking me, (or anyone of us on this forum for that matter) which is as it should be.
In this case it does not matter at all what I think about it. Are they going to take a vote? What ever is going to happen will happen, and I can't do a single thing to control it. Why are you even having this discussion?

[Pat Barry]

I try not to worry about things, especially the things I have no control over. Worrying is a complete waste of time, there has never been a single problem in the history of man that has ever been solved by worrying about it. So how does worrying about it make things better?
The authorities are not asking me, (or anyone of us on this forum for that matter) which is as it should be.
In this case it does not matter at all what I think about it. Are they going to take a vote? What ever is going to happen will happen, and I can't do a single thing to control it. Why are you even having this discussion?
Sure larry, I understand no one is asking you. No one is asking any of us. That doesn't mean we can't have a discussion and try to educate ourselves. I see it as information exchange and discussion - pardon the title but you know what I mean.

Anyway - more recent news:
"The spread of Ebola in Europe is "unavoidable", the World Health Organization said shortly after the contraction of four new cases was announced in Spain.
“Such imported cases and similar events as have happened in Spain will happen also in the future, most likely,” the WHO European director Zsuzsanna Jakab told Reuters.
On Monday scientists predicted that there was a 75 percent chance that Ebola would reach France by the end October and a 50 percent chance for the UK.

I guess that's why I care. Its not just a west Africa problem anymore if you believe the WHO

"

[Jim Koepke]

It's all at this point. They're all addicted to putting stories up with sensationalized information and misleading titles to get clicks and listeners. Until people start writing them and saying "i'm not going to start listening or watching until you base yourself in a reasonable reality and don't use misleading titles", they're going to do it.

I guess they're going to do it as long as they get more clicks.

I am not sure it is even all who are doing it.

The news tease to keep listeners or viewers to 'stay tuned' is an old tradition.

Some broadcasters or bloggers go out of their way to make up incredible linkings between imagined conspiracies and actual events. The sad part is at anytime at least 25% of our population take what these lords and ladies of artistic bull shoveling as the gospel truth. "If xxxx said it, it has to be true." Now if I could just convince them that xxxx wants them to buy my bridge...

jtk

[ray hampton]

Sure larry, I understand no one is asking you. No one is asking any of us. That doesn't mean we can't have a discussion and try to educate ourselves. I see it as information exchange and discussion - pardon the title but you know what I mean.

Anyway - more recent news:
"The spread of Ebola in Europe is "unavoidable", the World Health Organization said shortly after the contraction of four new cases was announced in Spain.
“Such imported cases and similar events as have happened in Spain will happen also in the future, most likely,” the WHO European director Zsuzsanna Jakab told Reuters.
On Monday scientists predicted that there was a 75 percent chance that Ebola would reach France by the end October and a 50 percent chance for the UK.

I guess that's why I care. Its not just a west Africa problem anymore if you believe the WHO

"

there is one detail that do not worry me BUT IT SURE CONFUSE ME, why is this a West Africa problem and not a problem for the whole nation of Africa

[paul cottingham]

there is one detail that do not worry me BUT IT SURE CONFUSE ME, why is this a West Africa problem and not a problem for the whole nation of Africa
Exactly. If it was as contagious as the fear mongers think, Africa would be completely depopulated by now.

[David Weaver]

Sure larry, I understand no one is asking you. No one is asking any of us. That doesn't mean we can't have a discussion and try to educate ourselves. I see it as information exchange and discussion - pardon the title but you know what I mean.

Anyway - more recent news:
"The spread of Ebola in Europe is "unavoidable", the World Health Organization said shortly after the contraction of four new cases was announced in Spain.
“Such imported cases and similar events as have happened in Spain will happen also in the future, most likely,” the WHO European director Zsuzsanna Jakab told Reuters.
On Monday scientists predicted that there was a 75 percent chance that Ebola would reach France by the end October and a 50 percent chance for the UK.

I guess that's why I care. Its not just a west Africa problem anymore if you believe the WHO

"

so, in my day job, I deal with probability a lot. When I see lines like "a 75 percent chance that it will reach __ and __" kind of thing, I wonder what they're doing to model that and what the accuracy is.

when it comes back to us, though, it really is whether or not we or someone we know will be affected, and we substitute headlines like "75 percent chance that it will come to spain (which is already probably part of a very loose confidence interval)" for "75 percent chance that it's a lot more likely to affect me".

But there is no such link that's actually there. I literally would wait until it was in my neighborhood before i would worry about it. At this point, if you don't touch fresh bodily fluids or someone who is symptomatic, it doesn't appear that transmission is occurring or is remotely likely to occur. When they ask people and 10 percent say they have no idea how they got it and they don't recall touching bodily fluids, it's likely that most of those folks touched bodily fluids or bodies and:
* don't remember
* don't want to admit to doing something stupid that people told them not to

A Dave A. mentioned, there are many things that materially affect us, and worrying about things that don't materially affect us is sort of like allowing part of our lives to be robbed from us little bits at a time.

As a perpetual worrier, in the last 5 years, I've made a conscious effort to not allow myself to worry about something if I am not actually doing something about it at the time. If it doesn't spur you to do something, then it is like good intentions without action.....

I think worry must be a natural mechanism to keep us on guard, even when it's irrational, but it's rational to turn it off most of the time, and focus on action or improvement instead.

[Mark Bolton]

Exactly. If it was as contagious as the fear mongers think, Africa would be completely depopulated by now.

Wow.. they must really put the fire on a sneeze over there?!? So you mean a person with Ebola lets off a sneeze and its suppose to make it to the southern tip, the eastern coast, and the northern most reaches of an entire continent in a matter of months?

It just goes to show that we have absolutely zero comprehension of what it is to live within the confines of a few acres of land for nearly our entire lives. Much of the world (and our country for that matter) are simply NOT mobile. They stay in close. Which in this case is a very good thing.

This reminds me of stories I heard when I moved here to WV. The older people (perhaps in their 60s now) talk openly about the fact that they lived their entire lives "on the farm". There are small one room schoolhouses up and down my road (9 miles long) to this day because population was higher but people schooled and lived very close to home. There are two old country store buildings in that 9 mile stretch and one at the end of the road. This meant no one had to travel more than 2.5 to 4 miles to get supplies. They talked that traveling to the store at the "END" of the road (9 miles for the farthest resident) was a MAJOR affair. That traveling to the state capital (40 miles away) was an all day event and many say that until they were much older then simply never got off the road. They lived and breathed every day of their lives in a couple mile radius. And this was not back in the "old days". Were talking the 40's and 50's here.

Some of the parts of Africa are more like native American times, before we even came along.

Its just comical to me how we are so unable to put ourselves in other situations and spend just a few seconds thinking through the notion that there are places in this world (many, and many here in WV) where mobility is simply not what you would think.

[Jim Matthews]

Let me ask you if you think that the Ebola strain we are dealing with can be passed via mosquito or biting fly? If what it takes is bodily fluid, that seems a likely way to pass the disease, much like malaria I think it was.

I do agree, that in places like west Africa where hygiene is less than desirable (due to lack of clean water for example) then containing a disease like this is impossible. But, take a look at the good old USA and men in public restrooms, I'd hazard a estimate that more than 1/3 don't wash their hands - there you go for disease spreading mechanism right here. Makes you sick just thinking about it.

I don't care to speculate above my paygrade.

I may be among the rare American, still believing what credentialed experts say.

If YOU wash your hands with soap and water, or use the most basic disinfecting procedure - dilute bleach in water -
your risk from this, or any other communicable disease drops below that of lightning strikes.

There's a reason that viruses like this are common in warm, wet places and rare in Minnesota.

Maybe tonight isn't the best night to watch "The Andromeda Strain" or "28 days later".

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/ebola/06-october-2014/en/

[Dave Anderson NH]

It's been a long time since I had a course in epidemiology but here are a few general guidelines for multiple contagious diseases.

1. The disease has to first have a host or several hosts which it doesn't kill and which provide nourishment in order to have long term survival.
2. Whether by aerosol or bodily fluid contact (of any type), the disease must be robust enough to survive in its chosen environment.
3. To eradicate or mostly eradicate a disease the best chances for success are finding and isolating or destroying the vector.
4. A disease moved to any environment other than its native one will either have to find a new host in that environment, mutate (adapt) to the new environment, or die out in the new environment.

Just as a point of reference, Ebola is only one of a class of diseases in the group known as hemorrhagic fevers.

[paul cottingham]

Wow.. they must really put the fire on a sneeze over there?!? So you mean a person with Ebola lets off a sneeze and its suppose to make it to the southern tip, the eastern coast, and the northern most reaches of an entire continent in a matter of months?

It just goes to show that we have absolutely zero comprehension of what it is to live within the confines of a few acres of land for nearly our entire lives. Much of the world (and our country for that matter) are simply NOT mobile. They stay in close. Which in this case is a very good thing.

This reminds me of stories I heard when I moved here to WV. The older people (perhaps in their 60s now) talk openly about the fact that they lived their entire lives "on the farm". There are small one room schoolhouses up and down my road (9 miles long) to this day because population was higher but people schooled and lived very close to home. There are two old country store buildings in that 9 mile stretch and one at the end of the road. This meant no one had to travel more than 2.5 to 4 miles to get supplies. They talked that traveling to the store at the "END" of the road (9 miles for the farthest resident) was a MAJOR affair. That traveling to the state capital (40 miles away) was an all day event and many say that until they were much older then simply never got off the road. They lived and breathed every day of their lives in a couple mile radius. And this was not back in the "old days". Were talking the 40's and 50's here.

Some of the parts of Africa are more like native American times, before we even came along.

Its just comical to me how we are so unable to put ourselves in other situations and spend just a few seconds thinking through the notion that there are places in this world (many, and many here in WV) where mobility is simply not what you would think.
Uh, you are missing the point of my post. And I actually do have a pretty good idea about what Africa looks like. I am saying that Africans may not be all that mobile, but there are still plenty of people who are, that could spread Ebola around like a rocket. Except that 1) it kills too fast, 2) it not airborne 3) it makes people too sick, too fast, (especially low mobility people) to spread that quickly.
look at AIDS. It has decimated subsaharan Africa. My church has built several orphanages mostly populated by babies whose parents have perished from aids. But it sickens slowly. So people have plenty of time to spread it. And mobility is good enough that it has spread throughout Africa.
so if Ebola was that deadly, and infectious, it would be all over Africa.

[David Weaver]

Some broadcasters or bloggers go out of their way to make up incredible linkings between imagined conspiracies and actual events. The sad part is at anytime at least 25% of our population take what these lords and ladies of artistic bull shoveling as the gospel truth. "If xxxx said it, it has to be true." Now if I could just convince them that xxxx wants them to buy my bridge...



Those blog type issues are easy for me to avoid, personally. If I notice a site that does that even once, I cross it off of my list.

More concerning is that the factual accuracy of the actual main news houses has not improved despite the fact that it is a lot easier for most of us to do fact checking now. 25 years ago, what fact checking was there to examine the level of credibility of the national news? The anchors took themselves very seriously back then, but they also had the problem of thinking that the news was a trademarked event of theirs, and that they added something to it other than transmission (they did add something...bias).

I challenge anyone who feels the news goes biased one way or the other to do a thorough review of all of it. And now it's half news half marketing. I want the news as a news consumer, not what someone has computer optimized to sell the most ad time or make the most loyal viewers. If I watch the news at all now (which I generally don't do) it's generally the english speaking news from foreign countries (like NHK).

The rest of the stuff, it helps to have a healthy amount of skepticism for anything that doesn't pass the smell test.

I've seen a lot of stories lately about "researchers worry ebola could go airborne", or "researchers worried that ebola may transmit easier than thought". Those stories do nothing unless someone actually knows something and can prove it. They're chosen because they generate more clicks than "ebola situation same as yesterday....wait a few days and check in again then to see if it's changed".

We have been sold trash on TV because the viewership of it has dropped and the networks have realized that with whatever is left on TV, they can get non-actors and non-writers to make something for 1/3rd of the production cost.

[Scott Shepherd]

And fresh off the L.A. Times press, experts, qualified experts on the subject saying they have no idea how it spreads. A lot of what they say is the same thing the guy said on the radio that I mentioned. One of the guys ran test on monkeys and they said they didn't exactly know how it was spreading, but in the end, it spread so fast, they had to kill all the monkeys to stop it.

Humm....experts saying the same thing the guy on the radio said......go figure. I guess they are just looking for media attention too. A lot of what's been said is contradicted by this article today :

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ebola-questions-20141007-story.html#page=1

[David Weaver]

That is not a west african ebola, it's an asian strain, it's already covered on wikipedia and it's not new. The article states 1989 - one would have to wonder why it didn't infect the researchers who were exposed - the article in the current newspaper appears to be edited to drive readership more than to inform. Here's what else was said about the small strain that was in the apes (from wikipedia):

Airborne transmission has not been documented during EVD outbreaks.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola_virus_disease#cite_note-WHOAir2014-2) They are, however, infectious as breathable 0.8– to 1.2-μm laboratory-generated droplets.[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola_virus_disease#cite_note-28) The virus has been shown to travel, without contact, from pigs to primates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate), although the same study failed to demonstrate similar transmission between non-human primates.[29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola_virus_disease#cite_note-pmid23155478-29)

[Phil Thien]

Uh, you are missing the point of my post. And I actually do have a pretty good idea about what Africa looks like. I am saying that Africans may not be all that mobile, but there are still plenty of people who are, that could spread Ebola around like a rocket. Except that 1) it kills too fast, 2) it not airborne 3) it makes people too sick, too fast, (especially low mobility people) to spread that quickly.
look at AIDS. It has decimated subsaharan Africa. My church has built several orphanages mostly populated by babies whose parents have perished from aids. But it sickens slowly. So people have plenty of time to spread it. And mobility is good enough that it has spread throughout Africa.
so if Ebola was that deadly, and infectious, it would be all over Africa.

There are a ton of travel restrictions there (Africa) due to the Ebola outbreak(s).

[Mel Fulks]

Few years back on TV they had some Ebola commercials ...guy yelling EBOWLAWWW! through a trumpet -megaphone thing. Said it would stop your coughing. Well, I call that deceptive !

[Jim Matthews]

We celebrate our unwashed Mass annually,
to honor St. Francis of Assissi.

We like to do it in the Spring, when the wind is blowing.

[Jim Matthews]

Don't take it personally.

My BIL is NIOSH.
You should hear the abuse he fields.

Not that anyone accusing him of malfeasance has a clue what he does.
(Epidemiology)

Never play Scabble with a PhD.
They'll cheat, and you'll never know.

[Jim Matthews]

That is not a west african ebola, it's an asian strain, it's already covered on wikipedia and it's not new. The article states 1989 - one would have to wonder why it didn't infect the researchers who were exposed -

Don't confuse the conspiracy nuts with factual analysis, dates and citations.
It just makes them more suspicious and jumpy.

There are some lost causes, with nothing better to do than try
to turn this otherwise useful site into Conservative Redoubt Abjuring Probability.

[Phil Thien]

There is a timeline at Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola_virus_epidemic_in_West_Africa#Timeline_of_ca ses_and_deaths

It seems pretty clear that the rate of infection is actually slowing. Things were worsening quickly until about 8/31/14, but now appear to have turned the corner.

But we don't have much data, and we don't have any previous experience with Ebola in large cities to draw upon. But experts can make worthwhile generalizations based on experience with other infectious diseases.

News reports indicate some experts fear a large wave (14k newly infected) may be coming, but hard to know if that is just a cash grab scare-tactic or what. I hope nobody would be too surprised if at least a few organizations were going for the green.

I'd say the next few reports of total infected will be very telling.

[Moses Yoder]

i
have doubt that they really understand its transmission. For example - how can they be SURE that it is not airborn? I just think they are over-selling their knowledge.

Lets assume though, that you are not worried. I can appreciate that. What will it take to make you worried?


If I was hand cutting a tenon 3" long and all I had was an 18 tooth crosscutting back saw limited to a 2-1/2" depth of cut, I would be worried.

[Pat Barry]

And fresh off the L.A. Times press, experts, qualified experts on the subject saying they have no idea how it spreads. A lot of what they say is the same thing the guy said on the radio that I mentioned. One of the guys ran test on monkeys and they said they didn't exactly know how it was spreading, but in the end, it spread so fast, they had to kill all the monkeys to stop it.

Humm....experts saying the same thing the guy on the radio said......go figure. I guess they are just looking for media attention too. A lot of what's been said is contradicted by this article today :

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ebola-questions-20141007-story.html#page=1
Thanks Scott - Excellent article. Lots of reputable sources saying similar things. They really don't fully understand the transmission characteristics. Its easy to say things like "The CDC remains confident, he said, that Ebola is transmitted principally by direct physical contact with an ill person or their bodily fluids." That covers most of the bases, but it leaves open the explanation that direct physical contact is not the ONLY method of transmission. The CDC is not certain, reputable persons are willing to state that. That means that we are at bigger risk than the CDC reports might be wiling to acknowledge. We need to get in front of this thing and we need to do it very aggressively and it needs to happen very soon.

Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2014/10/04/how-ebola-sped-out-of-control/) excerpt: ""In retrospect, we could have responded faster. Some of the criticism is appropriate," acknowledged Richard Brennan, director of the WHO's Department of Emergency Risk Management and Humanitarian Response. But he added, "While some of the criticism we accept, I think we also have to get things in perspective that this outbreak has a dynamic that's unlike everything we've ever seen before and, I think, has caught everyone unawares.""

[Pat Barry]

So now they are concerned that a deputy sheriff who had minor exposure to the residence of the Dallas victim may have somehow contacted the disease. He must have touched an infected doorknob or something. Lets hope this is a false concern but none the less this poor sherrif is going to be quarantined for quite a while. This shows the biggest problem is positive early identification of the disease. That's the scary part. Now they are going to check people getting off flights in just 5 US cities, and by the way, the airplane cleaning crews are going to strike because of unsafe work conditions. The CDC has had 30 years to figure out a detection method and failed. That alone should scare folks.

[David Weaver]

Figure if that deputy was in the apartment for a half hour (which is how long he said he was in there), he could've done just about anything (touching door knobs, whatever).

I don't believe that it's that easy to transmit (or it would be affecting a lot more people than it is), but I still wouldn't take my chances that there isn't a surface that's got something on it.

What will be interesting is to see if one, that deputy has it, or if it's just mental (which he has every right to be if he was in there a half hour). And then, whether or not any of the people who literally spent days in the same place as the guy end up contracting it. I'd be surprised if there wasn't someone who was in the apartment for days who touched something infected and got it. The guy had to have been coughing, vomiting and touching things.

[Jim Becker]

Don't take it personally.

My BIL is NIOSH.
You should hear the abuse he fields.

Not that anyone accusing him of malfeasance has a clue what he does.
(Epidemiology).

Professor DR SWMBO is in the same work as your BIL... ;)
----

Folks, there have been complaints about some politicizing in this thread. Do not do that. You know the rules.

Jim
HGS Moderator

[ray hampton]

Professor DR SWMBO is in the same work as your BIL... ;)
----

Folks, there have been complaints about some politicizing in this thread. Do not do that. You know the rules.

Jim
HGS Moderator

If I ask you whether you are healthy, wealthy and wise , will someone claim that this statement are politicizing

[Pat Barry]

Its interesting that there are now two Dallas nurses who have contacted Ebola from the original Dallas West African victim but the family who lived for several days with this guy unprotected are still OK. I think the CDC has been caught with their pants down on this one. Even their recommended gowning and ungowning procedures or the basic protective equipment isn't doing the job. Sure they can blame a breach in protocol but they better be getting things in order pronto or no one will be willing to even treat a suspected Ebola patient.

[Myk Rian]

We're flying to Phoenix next month. I'll be wearing a mask. Not just because of the ebola issue, but I'm a heart patient and can't afford to take chances.

[David Weaver]

It appears that some of the nurses have come out and made an anonymous statement that a whole bunch of people were treating Duncan for several days without using the right equipment.

I hope that they all live. It sounds like the Nina Pham girl is doing pretty well, and still communicating readily with everyone.

AS much as I don't like to see the CDC coming out and just saying "well, their fault, they must've done something wrong", that's the most likely scenario, and the nurses coming out at this point saying people weren't following protocol makes it even more likely. It doesn't sound like that hospital was adequately ready for an ebola patient, and duncan probably should've been shipped to one of the 4 hospitals that was (they have treated several other patients who have arrived well into the throws of the virus, and we haven't heard anything about infected health care workers from them).

[Malcolm Schweizer]

Its interesting that there are now two Dallas nurses who have contacted Ebola from the original Dallas West African victim but the family who lived for several days with this guy unprotected are still OK. I think the CDC has been caught with their pants down on this one. Even their recommended gowning and ungowning procedures or the basic protective equipment isn't doing the job. Sure they can blame a breach in protocol but they better be getting things in order pronto or no one will be willing to even treat a suspected Ebola patient.


I thought the same thing, but remember- by the time he was in the hospital he would have had diarrhea, vomiting, and bleeding. When he was at home he only got fever. The worst was yet to come, and the possibility for exposure for nurses cleaning up his body fluids was much greater than when he was at home with just a fever.

[Phil Thien]

About the only protocol that will safely prevent the spread of a disease that results in projectile vomiting and diarrhea is a flame thrower.

I'm afraid we're fooling ourselves if we think these patients can be maintained in hospitals in any numbers without the disease spreading.

Separate facilities, much like the tuberculosis sanatoriums of the earlier 1900's will likely be required if the disease spreads in any significant way.

And I'm not saying it will spread. A couple of interesting notes: The person that was updating the table at Wikipedia I linked to earlier hasn't updated it since the 8th. I tracked down the latest #'s from the WHO and it doesn't look like there has been significant growth. I'm still hearing/reading news reports of expected waves of 10k/week newly infected, but I've been hearing/reading those reports for a few weeks now. With every passing day, the credibility of those projections becomes more questionable.

Here is a link to the page w/ the WHO situation reports:
http://www.who.int/csr/disease/ebola/situation-reports/en/

Here is the latest situation report (the 10th):
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/136161/1/roadmapupdate10Oct14_eng.pdf?ua=1

Total infected (for the three main countries) was 8376. Total dead 4024.

The #'s don't perfectly jive with the #'s on the Wikipedia table. The Wikipedia #'s include eight countries, but five of the eight have single-digit values. And the Wikipedia tables show slightly higher values on the 8th than the WHO tables do for the 10th. So someone was getting the #'s elsewhere. From WHO, likely, but a different set of tables.

[Scott Shepherd]

Each day, it's something new that we weren't told, or told wrong. I read something yesterday where a doctor said that it is well known that people can transmit this disease when they are pre-symptomatic. That means if you have the virus, it's inside you, but not reaching a level it's starting to make you ill, you are contagious. The virus is alive and can be transmitted. So you could have it, not know it, give it to someone else, prior to you showing any symptoms at all. That would mean that all the precautions you are seeing are stepping in too late.

Here's an interesting (and terrifying) article posted this morning. It says they nurses have claimed that the specimens of the Ebola patient were sent through the hospital's pneumatic delivery system, which would contaminate that entire thing as well. If you read this article, you'll easily understand how the nurse contracted it. That's pretty horrific stuff for people in charge of making sure this doesn't spread and treating sick people.

http://mashable.com/2014/10/15/dallas-nurses-sloppy-ebola/

[Malcolm Schweizer]

Now they said the nurse flew the day before diagnosis. UGH. I fly internationally with my job on a regular basis. I worry about these kinds of things. Also I worry about if this were to make it to the Caribbean on a boat or plane, it would wreak havoc, much like Chickungunya already has. (Mosquito borne virus that makes you ache and have dengue-like symptoms- it came from Africa by the way.) Every day cruise ships drop off thousands of people on our island and when a flu goes around it spreads very rapidly.

[Pat Barry]

Now they said the nurse flew the day before diagnosis. UGH. I fly internationally with my job on a regular basis. I worry about these kinds of things. Also I worry about if this were to make it to the Caribbean on a boat or plane, it would wreak havoc, much like Chickungunya already has. (Mosquito borne virus that makes you ache and have dengue-like symptoms- it came from Africa by the way.) Every day cruise ships drop off thousands of people on our island and when a flu goes around it spreads very rapidly.
Yes - here is a quote from an article on this subject :

"On Wednesday, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said it wanted to interview the people who flew on Frontier Airlines flight 1143 from Cleveland, Ohio, to Dallas, Texas on 13 October.
It said it was taking the measure "because of the proximity in time between the evening flight and first report of illness the following morning".
The nurse, who has yet to be identified, was not showing symptoms of the disease when she flew, the crew has told CDC investigators."

If I believe the standard CDC 'line', they should not be worried about those 123 people (they must be forgetting all the people that sat in the same waiting area, went to the same restroom, etc) because she wasn't symptomatic at the time she travelled.

I just wish they would tell the truth as they know it, not what we wnat to hear, not what they wish is actually true, just tell us the real truth.

Another scary quote from the same article:
"In a statement, the airline said the plane "remained overnight at [Dallas] airport... at which point the aircraft received a thorough cleaning per our normal procedures which is consistent with CDC guidelines prior to returning to service the next day. ""

I can't tell you how many times I have gotten on an airplane that was literally filthy. God only knows how the armrests, pull down seat back tray, restroom, etc on that plane were contaminated or not.

[Pat Barry]

The CDC told the infected nurse it was OK to fly from Cleveland to Dallas even though she had a fever? I think the CDC is demonstrating the Peter Principle.

[Phil Thien]

The CDC told the infected nurse it was OK to fly from Cleveland to Dallas even though she had a fever? I think the CDC is demonstrating the Peter Principle.

If I had the CDC's clout (and budget) I'd have arranged an air ambulance or military transport. I wouldn't be terribly surprised to learn the CDC has a fleet of their own jets, here let me google this, stand-by, yep, they do!

[Mark Bolton]

I just happened to listen to a good podcast on containment last night. I'm not sure how to post the direct lino but I think this is the list page. A few down the list is the episode on containment rather than a cure.

http://www.sciencefriday.com/audio/scifriaudio.xml

[Phil Thien]

New data from WHO as of the 15th: 8973 cases and 4484 deaths in the three primary African countries.

Source: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/136508/1/roadmapsitrep15Oct2014.pdf?ua=1

[Phil Thien]

I just happened to listen to a good podcast on containment last night. I'm not sure how to post the direct lino but I think this is the list page. A few down the list is the episode on containment rather than a cure.

http://www.sciencefriday.com/audio/scifriaudio.xml

This is a very interesting "listen." This reporter (she is an investigative reporter) says without containment/control, we could be looking at 1.4 million deaths by February. Rather than a rush for a cure, she says we need a rush for a quick test to identify the infected, and then quarantine those people.

While the #'s so far don't seem to back-up that 1.4 million claim, I do believe that time is the enemy here.

[Myk Rian]

Few years back on TV they had some Ebola commercials ...guy yelling EBOWLAWWW! through a trumpet -megaphone thing. Said it would stop your coughing. Well, I call that deceptive !
Do you realize how ridiculous that statement is? He was saying Ricola.

[Mark Bolton]

About the only protocol that will safely prevent the spread of a disease that results in projectile vomiting and diarrhea is a flame thrower.


I know this isn't a humorous topic but that just cracked me up. One of the best reads of the thread.

We built a very large playground for an elementary school a few years back. The janitors (ladies) would come out and give treats to our dog all the time and they would talk about having had cleaned up xx number of pukes and diarrheas that day. Then the staff would come out and ask us to go in and look at problems or needed repairs in the school. Walking in they'd point to a door and say "go in there," or "the light switch is right there on your left". I kept my hands to myself and said, no dice, I'm not touching anything in this place. They could open all the doors and turn on all the lights. Just breathing the air in there freaked me out lol.

The immune systems those women had to have would probably equal that of the terminator or something. I told them I operate most of my days without coming in contact with another human being, much less a petri dish of hundreds of snot nosed kids sticking their fingers in their noses and down their pants and half heartedly washing their hands haha. I'm like a fragile little bird compared to them.

Thankfully we didn't have to do any of the interior work.

[Mel Fulks]

Myk, I think I realized it even before you did. The jokes that don't sell....I use myself.... But thanks.

[Mark Bolton]

Myk, I think I realized it even before you did. The jokes that don't sell....I use myself.... But thanks.

Yet another good laugh. You guys are killing me.

[Scott Shepherd]

More and more each day, the things we learn are proving the things I posted at the start of this thread about the guy that called into a radio show, are proving to be spot on.

While many things he said we dismissed earlier in this thread, now it's showing that the things he was saying (as well as others) are far more accurate than anything the CDC is saying.

That plane took 5 more trips AFTER the symptomatic nurse flew on it. How, in this day in time, can ANYONE think that putting someone showing symptoms on a plane and then letting that plane continue for 5 more flights, is a good idea is crazy.

Someone needs to get fired for those types of decision making skills.

So it's 140 on that one flight, and all their family, friends, people that have come in contact with while moving through normal life. That's got to be in the 1000's of people at some risk, even if minimal. Now, multiply that times the 5 more flights that were taken on that same plane.

Insane to think anyone would allow this to happen.

[David Weaver]

The key thing that you quoted is that the disease is not ebola (which is false) that ebola liquifies people in what, 2 days? Not correct.

So far, we have two people who were infected because they were apparently working in a hospital that did not have proper protocol in place and put at least two people directly in contact with bodily fluids.

We also have a house full of people who were in casual contact with a guy who had a high viral load, and so far none of them have shown to be symptomatic.

And we have an example of what looks like a CDC individual literally standing by unprotected for a patient who is known to have ebola. If he thought or knew that it was something that could transmit that easily, he would've been a lot further away.

The issues so far appear to have been from stupidity, and not conspiracy.

(nobody has said anything about the small group of patients, what 6 or so? who have been successfully treated without anyone else getting infected - in places where protocol is known and followed).

[Phil Thien]

More and more each day, the things we learn are proving the things I posted at the start of this thread about the guy that called into a radio show, are proving to be spot on.

While many things he said we dismissed earlier in this thread, now it's showing that the things he was saying (as well as others) are far more accurate than anything the CDC is saying.


You never really posted much about what the guy actually said other than this isn't Ebola and real Ebola liquefies the victim's body. You said he claimed this was Marburg.

But this is, without any doubt, Ebola.

[Al Launier]

I'm really concerned as I think poor decisions are being made, yet think/hope we'll "eventually" get control of this.???

What has me most concerned is the decision not to bar incoming flights from any country known to have victims of ebola. If that cannot be done, then at least quarantine everyone arriving from these countries. That would be their price for leaving those afflicted countries, regardless who they are. Expecting that short term procedures (questionaires, taking temperatures, etc.) at airports will provide adequate protection against entry of temporarily dormant ebola contaminated people is naive. What I am NOT concerned about is the potential economic effect this might have on fledging economies. Heck, we probably give them more money than their national economy produces anyway. The lack of adequate leadership in our country that cannot make difficult decisions (too focused on politics) is a major problem!

Finally, all victims could instead be immediately flown to an "old aircraft carrier(s), or such), similar the Mercy Ships, i.e. "Ship of Hope" that are staffed with an emergency staff/crew trained to handle these crises. This would keep all afflicted victims away from the mainland & prevent victims from flying "wherever" such as the nurse that flew from Dallas to Ohio & exposed herself to 132 passengers who then flew on to other areas of our country.

[David Weaver]

It does seem to make sense doesn't it? Bar incoming flights from outbreak countries, continue to monitor anyone coming in from other countries because they could be from those, and the * people who have had material exposure / contact * with someone who has ebola - should be placed somewhere that they literally can't go anywhere for 3 weeks, make an emergency legislative bill that doesn't allow them to be fired from their employers and that pays them back wages for three weeks.

it's not in everyones' best interest to have people who provide a substantial risk flying around on airplanes or visiting restaurants in new jersey. It's a problem that could be solved *easily*. Easily.

[Scott Shepherd]

You never really posted much about what the guy actually said other than this isn't Ebola and real Ebola liquefies the victim's body. You said he claimed this was Marburg.

But this is, without any doubt, Ebola.

The Ebola that is killing people is doing so by liquifying their organs.

What I said the guy, and other doctors since then, said was that we're not being told the truth and that it's a lot more dangerous than they are saying, which we are finding out to be true every single day.

Over 200 health care workers have died from Ebola this year alone, globally, so I hardly think it's a "harmless" as some are portraying it to be. Two days ago, they upped the mortality rate to 70%. That's a lot closer to the dangerous levels those doctors interviewed have indicated.

I think the test is simple. It's easy to quote statistics from wikipedia, but if you were sitting in an airport, waiting for a plane, and they announced that your flight had just transported an infected ebola patient and it had not been properly cleaned, would you get on the plane. I seriously doubt it.

[Phil Thien]

Isolation is, in fact, the method that was used to combat (successfully) all previous outbreaks of Ebola. We were lucky because the outbreaks were limited to small villages that were inherently very isolated.

Mobility and time are our enemies here. If anyone flying with the travelling nurse falls ill, I'm afraid effective isolation is off the table. People developing early symptoms will simply refuse to self-report because their fever could mean just a mild flu coming on. But if they self-report, their chances of exposure to others with Ebola increase exponentially.

Our failure was nipping this in the bud.

The best approach in these cases is using your biggest artillery (isolation/quarantine) early on. Otherwise, by the time you're ready to roll-out the big guns, it is already too late.

[ray hampton]

It does seem to make sense doesn't it? Bar incoming flights from outbreak countries, continue to monitor anyone coming in from other countries because they could be from those, and the * people who have had material exposure / contact * with someone who has ebola - should be placed somewhere that they literally can't go anywhere for 3 weeks, make an emergency legislative bill that doesn't allow them to be fired from their employers and that pays them back wages for three weeks.

it's not in everyones' best interest to have people who provide a substantial risk flying around on airplanes or visiting restaurants in new jersey. It's a problem that could be solved *easily*. Easily.

what can we do to stop and kill this disease short of using a nuke bomb

[Phil Thien]

The Ebola that is killing people is doing so by liquifying their organs.

What I said the guy, and other doctors since then, said was that we're not being told the truth and that it's a lot more dangerous than they are saying, which we are finding out to be true every single day.

Over 200 health care workers have died from Ebola this year alone, globally, so I hardly think it's a "harmless" as some are portraying it to be. Two days ago, they upped the mortality rate to 70%. That's a lot closer to the dangerous levels those doctors interviewed have indicated.

I think the test is simple. It's easy to quote statistics from wikipedia, but if you were sitting in an airport, waiting for a plane, and they announced that your flight had just transported an infected ebola patient and it had not been properly cleaned, would you get on the plane. I seriously doubt it.

(1) Whether their organs are liquefied is irrelevant. They're dead.

(2) You see a conspiracy to deceive, I see only incompetence.

(3) I don't think anyone is portraying this outbreak as "harmless."

(4) The Wikipedia #'s are from WHO. I'll take that data over the hysteria, thanks.

(5) Do you seriously need me to answer this? They announce they transported an infected patient and failed to adequately clean the plane afterwards and my refusal to get on the plane is evidence of what?

[David Weaver]

(5) Do you seriously need me to answer this? They announce they transported an infected patient and failed to adequately clean the plane afterwards and my refusal to get on the plane is evidence of what?

Personally, I don't buy into any of the conspiracy stuff, either, and would also not get on the plane. What we don't know about the person riding the plane is if they had a BR accident in their pants or something, or if they wiped their nose or mouth and got it on something, things that literally are disease transmitting *without any conspiracy theories*.

Not getting on a plane that hasn't been properly cleaned is just common sense.

If someone told me the plane had been cleaned with CDC supervision, I would then get on it. There are lots of risks in the world. A properly decontaminated area is not one I'd be concerned about - I could just as easily get hit by a bus while thinking about it - something I have actually seen in this city several times (and I don't worry about that, either).

[Scott Shepherd]

(1) Whether their organs are liquefied is irrelevant. They're dead.

(2) You see a conspiracy to deceive, I see only incompetence.

(3) I don't think anyone is portraying this outbreak as "harmless."

(4) The Wikipedia #'s are from WHO. I'll take that data over the hysteria, thanks.

(5) Do you seriously need me to answer this? They announce they transported an infected patient and failed to adequately clean the plane afterwards and my refusal to get on the plane is evidence of what?

(2) Where did I say there was a conspiracy? A conspiracy to do what? I don't believe it's a "conspiracy", but I do believe it's truly unqualified people handling the situation (meaning the top level, not the people in the trenches).

(3) Sure they are, read through this thread, David even breaks it down for us saying "It's only 2 people with it", and they aren't dead, so there's not much to worry about.

(4) I think I'll take doctors on the ground over a WHO website, thanks. The CDC website hasn't even been updated for healthcare workers about it since July 30th. How's that sane? No additional precautions about it on the CDC website?

(5) It proves that it's easy to dismiss the seriousness of it all when it's not your health at risk. The point being, quite simply, that if they announced that, no one would get on the plane, instead, they DIDN'T announce it and ALLOWED people, up to 5 plane loads to get on that same aircraft. If you don't think that wreaks of complete and total incompetence, then I'm not sure what would qualify.

[David Weaver]

(3) Sure they are, read through this thread, David even breaks it down for us saying "It's only 2 people with it", and they aren't dead, so there's not much to worry about.


that's not actually what I said. What I said was that with removal of the incompetency to do simple things that make sense based on a known facts basis, those cases could stop with those two (plus maybe anyone else who has been given the disease due to stupidity).

There are no cases without contact to bodily fluids to anyone, and as much as I didn't like the CDC head's immediate finger pointing to lack of protocol following at the hospital involved with those exposures, it took less than a day for nurses united to blow up the attempt at claiming that there were no breaches of protocol.

So, we're right back to where we were. Several cases that were properly handled appear to have created no exposure. Several people who lived in proximity to TED, who had a very high viral count and was literally vomiting at the apartment building he was in - also have not come up with ebola yet. It wouldn't be unreasonable to expect that at least one of those people may have had exposure to bodily fluids - TED was literally spewing them out, so if someone from that apartment turns up positive, I wouldn't be surprised. And I would also expect that it was literally due to contact with bodily fluids, and not from proximity alone. We have seen no cases otherwise.

I agree with phil, the concern here is incompetence and the inability of any leadership to do anything despite known risks. Concern for tinfoil hate nuclear shock wave unexpected transmissions of ebola otherwise? I don't think so. If the guy you quoted on the radio was quoted accurately, he still sounds like a quack and the actual facts justify that.

[Pat Barry]

It does seem to make sense doesn't it? Bar incoming flights from outbreak countries, continue to monitor anyone coming in from other countries because they could be from those, and the * people who have had material exposure / contact * with someone who has ebola - should be placed somewhere that they literally can't go anywhere for 3 weeks, make an emergency legislative bill that doesn't allow them to be fired from their employers and that pays them back wages for three weeks.

it's not in everyones' best interest to have people who provide a substantial risk flying around on airplanes or visiting restaurants in new jersey. It's a problem that could be solved *easily*. Easily.
Quarantine? Where? Who gets admitted (Sentenced)? When you have a small number you can manage this. If there are 1000 then it seems like it will be come an interment camp - just like the Nazi prison camps - people waiting to die. What if you catch a cold, your neighbor sees you coughing, your pharmacist sees you buying Tyllenol, they call the authorities and they proceed to lock you up. It won't be pleasant, thats for sure. It will be lawless and totally un-American.

No, the answer is better to stop anyone from leaving those countries at the center of the infection problem. Not try to screen them coming to America, just don't let them come at all. Right now the only effective way to stop this is to keep it from spreading.

[Phil Thien]

(2) Where did I say there was a conspiracy? A conspiracy to do what? I don't believe it's a "conspiracy", but I do believe it's truly unqualified people handling the situation (meaning the top level, not the people in the trenches).

(3) Sure they are, read through this thread, David even breaks it down for us saying "It's only 2 people with it", and they aren't dead, so there's not much to worry about.

(4) I think I'll take doctors on the ground over a WHO website, thanks. The CDC website hasn't even been updated for healthcare workers about it since July 30th. How's that sane? No additional precautions about it on the CDC website?

(5) It proves that it's easy to dismiss the seriousness of it all when it's not your health at risk. The point being, quite simply, that if they announced that, no one would get on the plane, instead, they DIDN'T announce it and ALLOWED people, up to 5 plane loads to get on that same aircraft. If you don't think that wreaks of complete and total incompetence, then I'm not sure what would qualify.

(2) "What I said the guy, and other doctors since then, said was that we're not being told the truth and that it's a lot more dangerous than they are saying, which we are finding out to be true every single day." Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

(3) David doesn't think this is harmless, he is trying to be proportional.

(4) The WHO data comes from doctors on the ground, as well as other sources.

(5) I do not believe the airline was made aware that they had transported a possibly infected individual as soon as they should have been. That is where the incompetence comes in.

[David Weaver]

Pat - regarding the exposed and people already infected, don't you think it would make more sense to put a stop to the situation right now? It may be that nobody who has been exposed will get it, anyway. It's not unamerican at all, our history is peppered with examples of segregation of people who are diseased in order to prevent other people from getting it. It's a lot easier to do when the cadre of exposed folks is 150 than it would be if it's 150,000.

But even if flights are stopped from libera, sierra leone, etc. those folks can still come here by coming through another country. In addition, we have several thousand soldiers over there putting up buildings and possibly getting exposed to people one way or another. They, along with other health workers, will be coming back here and some may be affected.

putting a stop to the cases that arrive in country so that there are no more people in the country who contract it here should be priority number one. "to keep it from spreading" as you say. It has to be a two pronged-strategy. One to try to limit when it comes in (to health workers and soldiers) and two, to eliminate the chance it will be transmitted once it's here.

[Pat Barry]

If someone told me the plane had been cleaned with CDC supervision, I would then get on it.
Count me out. I think the CDC is failing us all miserably and they need to quit directing the efforts because they are so far over their head they don't know which way is up. They have had 40 years to figure this out. It seems to me they should have something substantial. They don't. The guy in charge is a bureaucrat and doesn't understand the problem or the solutions.

[David Weaver]

If you have ever worked with government agencies, you'd get a sense about why nobody is taking charge. Nobody within them wants to make a decision on the fly because the rules they operate under are so complex. They need leadership that has authority and backbone, and the support of congress to do what preserves life, it's that simple.

[Pat Barry]

Pat - regarding the exposed and people already infected, don't you think it would make more sense to put a stop to the situation right now? It may be that nobody who has been exposed will get it, anyway. It's not unamerican at all, our history is peppered with examples of segregation of people who are diseased in order to prevent other people from getting it. It's a lot easier to do when the cadre of exposed folks is 150 than it would be if it's 150,000.

But even if flights are stopped from libera, sierra leone, etc. those folks can still come here by coming through another country. In addition, we have several thousand soldiers over there putting up buildings and possibly getting exposed to people one way or another. They, along with other health workers, will be coming back here and some may be affected.

putting a stop to the cases that arrive in country so that there are no more people in the country who contract it here should be priority number one. "to keep it from spreading" as you say. It has to be a two pronged-strategy. One to try to limit when it comes in (to health workers and soldiers) and two, to eliminate the chance it will be transmitted once it's here.
Oh yes David, I agree completely. We just can't allow the unchecked spread of this. But, if we don't and the numbers grow it will quickly become unmanageable. Matter of fact, who would manage it? Right now it seems we would need to quarantine an entire hospital, workers and all. Of course, if we did that, probably half of them could die before its over.

[Scott Shepherd]

(2) "What I said the guy, and other doctors since then, said was that we're not being told the truth and that it's a lot more dangerous than they are saying, which we are finding out to be true every single day." Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

(3) David doesn't think this is harmless, he is trying to be proportional.

(4) The WHO data comes from doctors on the ground, as well as other sources.

(5) I do not believe the airline was made aware that they had transported a possibly infected individual as soon as they should have been. That is where the incompetence comes in.

(2) So they were right, it is more dangerous than reported by the CDC. So that makes them conspiracy theorists? Let's examine the facts, they said what is happening now was going to happen. So they were right, the CDC was wrong. If you chose to call that a conspiracy, then that's on you, not me. I call it (and they seemed to as well) incompetence, not conspiracy.

Since none of you heard the interviews, you're just making these doctors into the boogie man. How about finding out what they actually said and comment on that instead of relying on me (a non-medical person) trying to paraphrase a conversation I heard in passing and didn't realize I'd be tested on later????

Go back to what was first said by CDC and look at where they are today. In less than 2 weeks, just about every thing they have said has been wrong. They contradict themselves daily. I don't think there's a master plan to deceive us. I think they really are that incompetent.

How anyone, anywhere, on any planet can think it's okay to put a symptomatic ebola patient on a commercial, public flight is proof of that. The CDC told her to get on that flight, not some doctor on the radio, yet some of you want to hold the doctor on the radio to higher standards.

[David Weaver]

Well, it's not that transmittable. I was talking to a neighbor yesterday, and I'd say find a resort that's just closed due to financial issues and put the people in it. If they get a fever, fly them to one of the expert treatment hospitals and it's solved. The remaining folks could literally have their own rooms or several rooms at such a resort, even if there are hundreds of them, and they would not be exposed to each other. Give them the tools to take their own temperatures and have someone take their temperatures once a day.

That's easier to do right now than it would be with a lot of people.

What would such a just-closed resort cost - $50 million? Just pay it. I'll bet you could literally set up a federal paypal account and people in the US would donate enough to do it.

But get some federal agencies involved and nobody wants to be the person to green light such a thing. They make decisions in weeks, not minutes, and those are small individual decisions. It's clear that many of the folks have a reflexive reaction to place blame on someone else, because they feel they don't have any authority to do anything and thus don't want to take blame, even when they're at fault. I would expect that in a society like ours where information flows freely and academic type folks should be in charge of places like the CDC that have complex fluid problems to deal with that the last thing we would get is political blame-gaming (and I don't mean partisan, I mean spinning blame to someone else) when those folks talk on TV, but it's clear that the messages from everyone, from the hospital to the agency heads are very carefully crafted. Now is not the time for that.

[David Weaver]

(2) So they were right, it is more dangerous than reported by the CDC. So that makes them conspiracy theorists? Let's examine the facts, they said what is happening now was going to happen. So they were right, the CDC was wrong. If you chose to call that a conspiracy, then that's on you, not me. I call it (and they seemed to as well) incompetence, not conspiracy.


How is it more dangerous? So far, we have two people who are infected who were working somewhere that protocols were apparently not followed. Both people have had direct contact with bodily fluids of someone who is in the death throes from the disease.

What about the rest of the people who lived with TED, or who were in the ER with him the two times he was in there? And the rest of the people who were in the hospital in various rooms or places he might have been transferred to?

There has been no material change. Just incompetence in dealing with *already known* risks.

As they say on shark tank, as far as this discussion goes, "I'm out" until or unless something substantial comes along to believe that anything thus far has been inaccurate other than the advertised competence or leadership of the agencies (that's been proven otherwise).

[Scott Shepherd]

How is it more dangerous? So far, we have two people who are infected who were working somewhere that protocols were apparently not followed. Both people have had direct contact with bodily fluids of someone who is in the death throes from the disease.

Like I said, you keep repeating that it's "2" people with it, so it's not something to worry about, but I bet you a doughnut that you wouldn't get on a plane if they made the announcement that the last flight contained an ebola patient that was testing positive for the disease. You can say "2" all day long, but you wouldn't take the flight. Why not? If it's not dangerous, then why wouldn't you get on the flight?

Same reason the number "2" shouldn't be focused on, but rather the 1000's now that have been unknowingly exposed to the possibility of it. Will 1000's get it? Of course not. But I'd rather be in the statistic that wasn't exposed to it or anyone that was exposed to it than not.

One of the doctors said that they needed to shut the flights down from that country, then the CDC says that's not necessary and would be harmful. Now you guys are saying that they should stop the flights. So you repeat the same thing they said and they are quacks? I don't get it.

[Malcolm Schweizer]

They keep saying the nurse who flew was not symptomatic. She had a fever- that is a symptom. ???

[David Weaver]

Like I said, you keep repeating that it's "2" people with it, so it's not something to worry about, but I bet you a doughnut that you wouldn't get on a plane if they made the announcement that the last flight contained an ebola patient that was testing positive for the disease. You can say "2" all day long, but you wouldn't take the flight. Why not? If it's not dangerous, then why wouldn't you get on the flight?

Same reason the number "2" shouldn't be focused on, but rather the 1000's now that have been unknowingly exposed to the possibility of it. Will 1000's get it? Of course not. But I'd rather be in the statistic that wasn't exposed to it or anyone that was exposed to it than not.

One of the doctors said that they needed to shut the flights down from that country, then the CDC says that's not necessary and would be harmful. Now you guys are saying that they should stop the flights. So you repeat the same thing they said and they are quacks? I don't get it.

Who said before that they shouldn't shut down flights? Me? No, but you keep asserting that I said something I didn't say. I said it's easier to contain it when it's two people and none of the transmissions so far have been anything other than routine. it's that easy. I'd appreciate it if you would quote what I said accurately without extrapolating, it's common courtesy and it's a requirement to have any kind of reasoned discussion.

I just said earlier I'd get on a plane that had been decontaminated. That's it, period. It doesn't matter whether you believe I would.

[Jim Koepke]

Someone needs to get fired for those types of decision making skills.

I saw someone on an interview program yesterday lambasting the U.S. Surgeon General for not doing more about this situation.

It seems a lot of the problems can be traced back to the Surgeon General not coordinating the various health agencies who should be involved in this mess.

Most people do not realize at this time we do not have a Surgeon General to mobilize the troops.

There are conspiracies of fear, foolishness and idiocy.

There are not conspiracies to get everyone in America infected.

I have posted on another forum about a treatment that seems to be working. Unfortunately that post contains some political nuance, so it can not be repeated in full here.

This is about all of the post that will, hopefully, be allowed:

In late July, when it looked like Dr. Kent Brantly wasn't going to make it, a small news item escaped Liberia. It spoke of Brantly's treatment – not of the Ebola vaccine, Zmapp, which Brantly later got. But of a blood transfusion. He had "received a unit of blood from a 14-year-old boy who had survived Ebola because of Dr. Brantly's care," the missive said.
Now months later, Brantly, who has since recovered from his battle with the virus, has passed on the favor. A 26-year-old Dallas nurse named Nina Pham, who contracted the illness while treating the United State's first Ebola patient, has received Brantly's blood. It's not the first time it has been used to treat Ebola patients. Recovered Ebola victim Richard Sacra got it, as well as U.S. journalist Ashoka Mukpo, who last night said he's on the mend.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/10/14/the-decades-old-treatment-that-may-save-a-young-dallas-nurse-infected-with-ebola/?tid=pm_pop

In a situation of "National Health Emergency" it is good to have the Surgeon General of the United States to guide the efforts at protecting America's health.

Some people are wondering why the U.S. Surgeon General hasn't said anything...

It is because at the current moment the United States doesn't have a Surgeon General.

jtk

[Scott Shepherd]

Who said before that they shouldn't shut down flights?

Umm, the head of the CDC.

[David Weaver]

Umm, the head of the CDC.

I guess he must've had the same name as phil or me to be confused with us saying that. I doubt the CDC is making that decision, anyway. The rest of their information has been accurate:
* it's passed only through bodily fluids
* it's not that easy to contract otherwise
* the infections that occurred in the US are due to breach of protocol

We will wait and see if any of this is accurate:
* it's the marburg virus (we already know that's false)
* it has 100% fatality if it's ebola (we already know that's false)
* ebola liquifies peoples' bodies in two days (we know that's false)
* it's easily transmissible (aerosol or whatever) - we know that's false

Pretty much the whole premise you're going on is conspiracy and the assumption that some of those above fallacies are true. Because one guy got on the radio and pretended to be a guru. The rest of the issues are obvious routine incompetence (no adherence to protocol) or leadership incompetence (failure to stop flights from ebola affected countries).

The fact that guinea has pretty much eliminated it just with competence and rigor (see the note about the guy who exposed 900 people, yet nobody got ebola from him so far) should take away the tinfoil hatting about easy transmission and other spooky false stories. Guinea is bordered by sierra leone and liberia. Same with nigeria.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/africa-stems-ebola-border-closings-luck-26249603

Get back to us when something of the later statements turns out to be true, and please use some restraint when thinking about claiming I said something I didn't.

[Pat Barry]

The rest of their information has been accurate:
* it's passed only through bodily fluids
* it's not that easy to contract otherwise
* the infections that occurred in the US are due to breach of protocol
I think the jury is still out on any and all of these statements. I think the CDC would like to see the breach of protocol so they can transfer blame from them being wrong to some nurse making a mistake. In reality it seems the CDC doesn't really have a good handle on this as demonstrated by them telling the second nurse it was OK to fly, by the CDC lowering the temperature required to be called a fever, by the head of the CDC spending lots of time on TV but not providing and real proactive measures, by the transfer of the nurses to new facilities - proving its not easy to manage. Lots of issues in my mind. THey better step up their response pronto or we are going to be pretty chaotic very soon.

[Scott Shepherd]

I went back and found the phone call into the show. It wasn't easy but you have made some assumptions that aren't correct and it's mainly a time based difference.

He said he had a team of 100 and some people back in the 60's when it was discovered. AT THAT TIME, the mortality rate was 100% and the only way to stop it was to shut off the villages and let it run it's course and kill everyone in the village. So mapping that comment into today's numbers, and then saying he's a liar for what he's saying isn't quite accurate.

He also says this is NOT ebola, it's Marburg and tells the difference. If you research Marburg and Ebola, I'm not sure how any of us would know the difference. The symptoms are identical. He explains the difference between the two reasonable well.

Here's a link to it. You need to fast forward to 24:50. A side note, I apologize for posting a call into the show it's on. I can't stand the show, don't listen to it, and turn it off every time I get in the car and it's on, so don't throw me in the host. I actually thought the host was a complete jerk to the guy, talking over him, talking about actresses and movies, etc. I listen to the station for local news on the way to work and then it's on when I get in the car to drive home, which is how I caught the interview, the guy had just come on when I started the car.

Listen to it, see if you think he sounds credible. To me, he did. To you, maybe not so much. He also had an interesting theory on why they weren't calling it by it's rightful name. No conspiracy theory.

http://download.premiereinteractive.com/seanhannity/2014/10/Sean%20Hannity%20-%20Oct%2002%202014%20-%20Hour%201.mp3

[Bruce Page]

Folks, this thread has had several edits to remove political comments.

It contains some good information so please refrain from the politics.

[David Weaver]

Listen to it, see if you think he sounds credible. To me, he did. To you, maybe not so much. He also had an interesting theory on why they weren't calling it by it's rightful name. No conspiracy theory.\


Salespeople, con men and politicians make a career of sounding credible while not necessarily telling the truth too often.

I don't care much about what sounds credible or doesn't sound credible, I care only about what is correct.

[Myk Rian]

I can see nothing but this thread going south, in a hurry.

[Scott Shepherd]

Salespeople, con men and politicians make a career of sounding credible while not necessarily telling the truth too often.

I don't care much about what sounds credible or doesn't sound credible, I care only about what is correct.

What does that mean? How in the world you put that guy in the category with a con man is odd to me. What was the "con" or "scam" he's running? To talk to people about Ebola? What's he gained out of it? He never once mentioned publicly the company he works for, what their products were, or anything that would be self promoting.

You don't want to believe a word the guy says, but you'll believe everything the CDC posts or says out of the box, even though their credibility has been wiped out. Look at the headline of every news site around the WORLD, not just the USA, they are all pointing to the fact that the CDC leader couldn't possibly make any more mistakes than he has.

If you held your sources to the standard you hold one guy on the radio, I'd understand it all.

Bizarre. How we got here from me saying "I heard a guy on a radio" that disagrees with what's being said is amazing to me.

Forget the 10 other doctors that have been saying similar things. I could post 10 more and you'd discredit them all too, so what's the point.

Instead, you might say "That was interesting, but I don't agree with anything he said", we get that response. Last time I checked, none of us were more knowledgeable than he was, or any other doctor that's been on tv. I guess I should assume all doctors that don't agree with the World Health Organization are liars from this point on in my life. Got it. Instead of listening to ALL sides, I should just listen to one side. Got it.

[David Weaver]

The guy isn't necessarily in that category, the point is that there are a lot of people who sound credible but are not interested in providing facts.

The CDC isn't the only group who has ever come across ebola. Their comments about transmission are held up by everyone else and not refuted by any of the physicians treating ebola patients. The fact that there are not practitioners saying "no, people are getting it just from proximity or casual contact" is enough for me.

And, no, i didn't listen to the guy, so I'm not implying he said anything, my earlier comments about what he said are only a repeat of what you told us.

What frustrates me in these discussions is not when people have an "anything is possible" point of view, but when they give fringe ideas just as much weight as what is likely and what is already observed. I have no interest in it, it sends people down rabbit holes for ridiculous things.

Like I said, when we start seeing mysterious cases of it that don't involve people in close contact with someone infected or in contact with bodily fluids, then I'll pay attention to fantastic scenarios. Until then, I'll stick with what's likely and already known. There's 40 years of knowledge of this disease already and no documentation of anything aerosolized other than one lab case of non-human primates, and the exposed humans were unaffected.

So far everything has fit the CDC's description. If it didn't, we'd have dozens and dozens or hundreds of cases here, and not 2.

You can believe what you like, but you shouldn't expect other people to agree that it's likely when you can't prove it is.

[David Weaver]

OK, I just broke down and listened to it. The guy has no credibility. Somewhere someone is boasting about how they hoaxed that show with a call in.

[Malcolm Schweizer]

Earlier I said that my fear was something like this would get on a cruise ship. "Whoop- there it is..." http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/10/17/cruise-ship-carrying-texas-ebola-nurse-refused-entry-in-belize/

Our hospitals in the Caribbean are not even remotely ready to handle a large outbreak. Although I am sure this person will end up not having ebola, the story shows that one person can get on a cruise ship with this disease and boom- every island on the cruise gets exposed.

[Dave Anderson NH]

A serious note folks. The CDC is primarily a research agency and a resource agency serving the government, doctors and other health professionals, and hospitals. It does not have statutory authority to issue orders, only recommendations. It doesn't have the kinds of authority needed to give orders like the FCC, FAA, ICC, CPSC, etc, etc. While almost everyone in the medical field takes their pronouncements and recommendations seriously, they are only that, recommendations. I felt it necessary to repeat this to make it clear. It seems that some posters in this thread have overly high expectations of what the CDC is capable of, and allowed to do.

[David Weaver]

Bringing that entire ship back to the port to dump off someone with no symptoms 19 days after a possible exposure is way over the top. Isolating them may not be, though, that's just good policy.

I'd imagine the cruise company probably feels the need to "do as much as they can" so they don't become the target of conspiracy theorists and ad campaigns or internet spook stories.

What stick out in my mind is 3000 troops in liberia, wherever they are, in much worse conditions than we have here. Are they going to isolate them for 21 days when they come back? Are they coming back on commercial flights or troop carriers? that just doesn't make sense to me if they just come back and are monitored voluntarily, because it's not like there's a lack of proof that people in the hot zones are actually getting ebola because of known exposures.

I noticed on another forum late last night, Nina Pham was being shown in a hospital room in a video, and the nurse shown on camera had a full suit with a respirator. The response by everyone was "look, the nurse has a respirator, it's airborne, we're all gonna die!!". Protocol is to have fully sealed suits for people working with patients who have known ebola with symptoms. Not a single person reasoned that you might actually need to have an air supply in a sealed suit or you will run out of air inside of it and not be a very good nurse.

Nor did anyone suggest that there are hundreds of people who have been in proximity of people who are symptomatic, but nobody so far has gotten ebola without direct contact. I just don't understand why people fail at general reasoning, is it like a horror movie where everyone just wants to scare themselves? Because there are horror movies (in 3d even) if that's what someone wants.

[Phil Thien]

Earlier I said that my fear was something like this would get on a cruise ship. "Whoop- there it is..." http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/10/17/cruise-ship-carrying-texas-ebola-nurse-refused-entry-in-belize/

Our hospitals in the Caribbean are not even remotely ready to handle a large outbreak. Although I am sure this person will end up not having ebola, the story shows that one person can get on a cruise ship with this disease and boom- every island on the cruise gets exposed.

You know, in the yet-to-come final analysis, the CDC's biggest failure will be a failure to recognize that the game against of Ebola is won or lost early-on.

NEVER BEFORE has the old adage that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, been more true!

But the CDC's response has been absolutely mind-boggling. A combination I'd say of incompetence with some arrogance tossed in.

[Phil Thien]

A serious note folks. The CDC is primarily a research agency and a resource agency serving the government, doctors and other health professionals, and hospitals. It does not have statutory authority to issue orders, only recommendations. It doesn't have the kinds of authority needed to give orders like the FCC, FAA, ICC, CPSC, etc, etc. While almost everyone in the medical field takes their pronouncements and recommendations seriously, they are only that, recommendations. I felt it necessary to repeat this to make it clear. It seems that some posters in this thread have overly high expectations of what the CDC is capable of, and allowed to do.

Read this:
http://www.cdc.gov/phlp/docs/ph-emergencies.pdf

At the request of the CDC, the Department of Homeland Security and/or Health and Human Services would simply declare a public health emergency, and then defer to experts at the CDC to call the shots.

The idea that the CDC is powerless in these situations is far from reality. With a phone call or two their power is nearly without limit.

[Dave Anderson NH]

Phil, I said statutory authority. Again, they can make the recommendation, but they can neither make the decision nor enforce it. The declaration of a pubic health emergency would be made possibly by the agencies you mention, but the final decision to declare it, would because of its seriousness and political ramifications, almost certainly fall to the president. As for CDC incompetence, since Ebola has in the past been "only" a disease on another continent, it was undoubtedly a pretty low priority compared to AIDS and both common and uncommon diseases endemic to this continent. They have limited dollars and both real need and political pressure almost certainly weigh heavily in their budget allocation decisions. It's real easy to scream incompetence with 20/20 hindsight. Where were the folks pushing at the CDC months ago when the disease was only a west African problem? Where was the pressure to research and find cures for probably a dozen other diseases which normally occur only in other parts of the world?

[roger wiegand]

AIDS pales in comparison to TB, malaria, flu, and dysentery as worldwide infectious disease killers. Get your facts right please.

[Dave Anderson NH]

Roger, I was not commenting on the seriousness of AIDS compared to other diseases other than the patently obvious fact that there is a lot of political clout behind the expenditures and efforts to find a cure. Because of that clout huge sums are spent on research. With limits imposed by Congress on funding any agency, many of the choices are made in every government agency based on publicity and the placating the appropriate representative or senator. Like it or not, that's reality and unfortunately real needs often are of secondary consideration.

[David Weaver]

That didn't sound right (that malaria, dysentery and TB cause more deaths per year than HIV/AIDS), so I looked it up:

2012 Deaths:
Malaria: 627,000
AIDS: 1.5 million
TB: 1.3 million
Diarrheal Diseases: 1.5 million

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/

I can't say much about the flu, I'm sure there are statistics on it, but it's a major killer of the young and old, but not as much in otherwise healthy individuals like HIV/AIDS.

When someone age 90 dies of pneumonia, heart attack, stroke, etc, we used to say "they died of old age".

[Phil Thien]

Phil, I said statutory authority. Again, they can make the recommendation, but they can neither make the decision nor enforce it. The declaration of a pubic health emergency would be made possibly by the agencies you mention, but the final decision to declare it, would because of its seriousness and political ramifications, almost certainly fall to the president. As for CDC incompetence, since Ebola has in the past been "only" a disease on another continent, it was undoubtedly a pretty low priority compared to AIDS and both common and uncommon diseases endemic to this continent. They have limited dollars and both real need and political pressure almost certainly weigh heavily in their budget allocation decisions. It's real easy to scream incompetence with 20/20 hindsight. Where were the folks pushing at the CDC months ago when the disease was only a west African problem? Where was the pressure to research and find cures for probably a dozen other diseases which normally occur only in other parts of the world?

The decision to declare a public health emergency falls to the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, of which the CDC is an agency.

I believe other declarations by the Department of Homeland Security can be automatic triggers of public health emergency declarations.

The final decision to declare DOES NOT fall to the president, though, it falls to his cabinet secretary. The president could ask the secretary not to declare. But that means the president and his party accept all the fallout if things go south (so not a terribly likely scenario). And in reality, the president cannot PREVENT a declaration, only ask.

But none of that is material, because they COULD declare, they never NEED to declare. Nobody is ever going to question the authority of the CDC because ultimately the CDC can get whatever authority it needs.

To your point about recent history, none of it matters, we cannot change a thing. All we can do is deal with the problem immediately in front of us. Keeping Ebola as contained as possible is our only solution. Anything to the contrary works absolutely against us and will allow the disease to spread, making the only solution (containment) that much more difficult.

[Frank Drew]

I turned on the radio in my car while driving from job to job a couple days ago and it was a guy that was a CEO of a major drug company. He was fairly upset at all the misinformation going on. He said this is NOT Ebola. He said the actual strain of Ebola is the nastiest thing on the face of earth and has a 100% fatality rate. He said it turns your whole body to liquid, bones and all, in 48 hours.

Scott,

In a word, no. Ebola is one of the hemorrhagic diseases, meaning it can cause bleeding from clotting disorders and other pathologies, but the whole body doesn't melt as in that fellow's description. (All the bleeding and vomiting and diarrhea, though, might make it seem like the poor patients are melting!)

I work directly in front line patient care and I'm not panicked about Ebola but I'm definitely concerned because if this currently very minor outbreak does in fact develop some traction here, our hospitals might quickly become overwhelmed; a disease of this nature is extremely difficult to deal with, even more so than something like a major influenza epidemic. It's highly labor and resource intensive, commodities already in short supply in our health care system. Just handling and disposing of all the medical waste is something we're not ready for.

Today at work we practiced putting on, and, more importantly, taking off the multiple layers of protective garb necessary each and every time you enter an Ebola patient's room. Hugely time consuming, and with obviously very severe potential consequences if you make a even a minor error somewhere along the line.

(I hope nobody's thinking, "Yeah, but that's what you get paid for.")

[Phil Thien]

(I hope nobody's thinking, "Yeah, but that's what you get paid for.")

Actually I was putting myself in your shoes, imagining the dread of having to "suit up." And thinking how much worse a situation we as a nation would be in if it comes to that.

[Harold Burrell]

I came across this that I thought might be of interest here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qj4X0MsQjM

[Frank Drew]

Phil,

On the slim chance that this does blow up, it's going to be a mess (literally and figuratively) and, frankly, will test the commitment to health care of many health care workers, particularly those with kids, etc. Just getting cleaning crews willing to do their part of the work will be a major challenge, IMO.

I can just barely imagine the difficulty of fighting this disease in the heat and primitive conditions of W. Africa; it's no surprise that the infection rates among health care aides over there are so high.

Harold, I'll probably have to wait until I go to work to use the fast connection speeds to watch the whole video, but from what little I've seen Shepard Smith is telling his viewers that the vast, vast majority of them don't have to worry about catching Ebola, and that some of the overwrought media attention is simply fear-mongering. I agree. My main concern at the moment is how well the medical system will deal with this if the numbers increase; even if we get thousands of cases, by far most Americans won't be exposed, but they might not have access to their local hospitals, or even their doctor's office, for the duration of the outbreak depending on where patients turn up.

[Phil Thien]

Frank, the other day a local talk show host asked for healthcare workers to call in and voice their feelings on possibly having to treat Ebola patients. I'd say the majority of them were committed to helping, but not a single one of them didn't voice some concern not so much about their own safety, but the safety of their families.

And there were a few callers that simply said at this point, knowing what they know at this point in time, that they would resign before treating Ebola patients.

[Keith Hankins]

Well, as someone who is married to someone in the medical field and a son who works with biologic agents in the military, you should be scared to death. This is real and the horse is out. We should be banning travel from africa, but they wont, so nothing can be done. It will hit home when we have a major outbreak and other countries ban us from traveling to their country like mexico did with the cruz ship. I wish our prez was as worried about our citizens as he was with the rest of the world. The only thing you should beleive is that the Gov't is trying to calm the populace and they are lying through their teeth.

[Jim Koepke]

Keith,

Apparently you missed the video linked earlier in this thread:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qj4X0MsQjM

This appears to be a straight forward piece by Shepard Smith (from FOX) saying this isn't the time to foment fear and panic among the American public.

Trying to point fingers of blame and spreading disinformation will not help in the effort to stop this disease.

We can do better tracking of people and the disease by not having travel bans. Travel bans will have possibly infected people going to another country without travel bans to travel to our shores without screening. Having protocols in place in the areas where Ebola is epidemic will do more to keep it from getting beyond its present confines.

If you want a fact that is scary, even a bit terrifying is we currently do not have a Surgeon General in the United States to form a coordinated response. This is due to political posturing and fear of big money being used against candidates.

To me these factors are currently a bigger threat to our lives and freedoms than a handful of Ebola cases caused by medical missteps that are now being addressed.

As the days advance on this, medical teams are being made aware of proper handling and procedures to deal with those who may have come into contact with Ebola infected patients.

We can take a reasoned approach to this challenge. The alternative is to scream and shout while running in circles and causing mass hysteria.

My choice is almost always to take the reasoned approach. Develop a plan and adjust it as needed.

jtk

[Phil Thien]

Travel bans will have possibly infected people going to another country without travel bans to travel to our shores without screening.

You just don't issue visas to people that can't demonstrate at least 21 days of residency outside of the effected countries.

Am I missing something? I guess I keep hearing what you're saying repeated by others but I don't understand why someone would think it would be an easy matter to get to the US via a hop to another country?

If the argument is that screening is more effective than a travel ban, that is simply untrue. We have no test for Ebola, screening is nearly completely worthless. In fact, it isn't unusual to find people WITHOUT exposure to Ebola and that have elevated temperatures. How are you going to figure out which ones are pre-symptomatic and which ones aren't?

[Jim Koepke]

You just don't issue visas to people that can't demonstrate at least 21 days of residency outside of the effected countries.

Am I missing something? I guess I keep hearing what you're saying repeated by others but I don't understand why someone would think it would be an easy matter to get to the US via a hop to another country?

If the argument is that screening is more effective than a travel ban, that is simply untrue. We have no test for Ebola, screening is nearly completely worthless. In fact, it isn't unusual to find people WITHOUT exposure to Ebola and that have elevated temperatures. How are you going to figure out which ones are pre-symptomatic and which ones aren't?

Just because the U.S. imposes a travel ban doesn't mean neighboring countries will do the same.

Will we ban travel home to the 3,000 or so U.S. soldiers and doctors who are currently in the areas where Ebola is endemic?

Maybe we could shut down all travel world wide until there are no more infections. As if that would be feasible or possible.

If there is no test for Ebola, how do they know people have it?

No there is not a definitive test that can give results in minutes. If people have elevated temperatures they could be quarantined or banned from travel. I do not want to be on a plane with someone who is infected with the flu. I never liked those "faithful soldiers" showing up for work when they should be home in bed. They came to work and infected half the work force just to look like a trooper.

jtk

[Phil Thien]

Just because the U.S. imposes a travel ban doesn't mean neighboring countries will do the same.

Maybe in time they will. Countries with outbreaks can be added to our travel ban. But just because someone can leave an outbreak area and travel to (for example) Canada doesn't mean that once they're in Canada they can come to the U.S.


Will we ban travel home to the 3,000 or so U.S. soldiers and doctors who are currently in the areas where Ebola is endemic?

I'd suggest we may need to quarantine them. We'd obviously have to compensate these people handsomely. I'm willing to write checks.


Maybe we could shut down all travel world wide until there are no more infections. As if that would be feasible or possible.

I didn't suggest that, you suggested that and then said it wasn't possible???


If there is no test for Ebola, how do they know people have it?

That is why you need a travel ban.


No there is not a definitive test that can give results in minutes. If people have elevated temperatures they could be quarantined or banned from travel. I do not want to be on a plane with someone who is infected with the flu. I never liked those "faithful soldiers" showing up for work when they should be home in bed. They came to work and infected half the work force just to look like a trooper.

jtk

Remember, the only success we've had against Ebola is containment. That's it, nothing else works.

So I don't understand why people would be arguing against travel bans.

I think I've done a disservice by playing down the WHO #'s and likely erroneous reports of waves of 10k infected coming very soon.

You guys DO realize, I hope, that at 9000 cases now and an average daily growth rate of 2.3%, that those #'s alone will get us to a total infected of about 3M+ in twelve months, right?

That is a 100% certainty and probably optimistic, unless the outbreaks are contained. Ebola won't just go away.

As I've said earlier, time and incompetence are the enemies here. Every day we delay travel bans, the total number of cases and dead is increased, as is the likelihood of increases in that daily growth rate.

[Jim Koepke]

Maybe in time they will. Countries with outbreaks can be added to our travel ban. But just because someone can leave an outbreak area and travel to (for example) Canada doesn't mean that once they're in Canada they can come to the U.S.

How would we stop them or even know who to stop? What if they first travel to South Africa (or any other nation) then to Europe before coming to North America?


I didn't suggest that, you suggested that and then said it wasn't possible???

That is known as a rhetorical proposition. It was used to indicate how travel bans would mostly be a useless endeavor.


That is why you need a travel ban.

There are medical tests for Ebola. Like many medical tests they not are useful on a minute by minute basis.


So I don't understand why people would be arguing against travel bans.

Because they are next to useless in stopping the spread of this disease. It is better to have full scale screening in the areas most affected by Ebola and at the boarders leading out of those areas.


I think I've done a disservice by playing down the WHO #'s and likely erroneous reports of waves of 10k infected coming very soon.

Sounds like fear mongering to me.

Are these 10K standing at our boarders just waiting for their symptoms before they come streaming in?

Some really paranoid people are spreading rumors of terrorists who are getting infected so they can start coughing all over food at salad bars.

Like many other things an epidemic will soon reach a saturation point and have nowhere to spread beyond its origin as long as we do not get complacent and allow people with detectable signs of infection to infect others.

Instead we should focus on containment/isolation of the infected and proper handling of waste materials to prevent the spread of Ebola.

In the areas where Ebola is endemic there needs to be better education so people can avoid infection.

In our own nation it seems the staff and management at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas were woefully unprepared to care for such a case. Hopefully more of their workers will be spared the terror of contracting this disease.

Hopefully this will also serve as a wake up call to other health care providers on handling the patients and waste involved with not only Ebola but other infectious disease.

jtk

[Phil Thien]

How would we stop them or even know who to stop? What if they first travel to South Africa (or any other nation) then to Europe before coming to North America?

Again, you just don't allow them a visa until they demonstrate 21 days of residency outside of an outbreak region.


That is known as a rhetorical proposition. It was used to indicate how travel bans would mostly be a useless endeavor.

Huh.


There are medical tests for Ebola. Like many medical tests they not are useful on a minute by minute basis.

There is no rapid test that can be performed.


Because they are next to useless in stopping the spread of this disease. It is better to have full scale screening in the areas most affected by Ebola and at the boarders leading out of those areas.

Again, screenings are completely ineffective. The only success in battling Ebola has been containment. Screenings are not containment.

Travel bans DO work. In fact, after 9/11, they found the influenza season was delayed by about two weeks due to the post 9/11 travel bans.


Sounds like fear mongering to me.

Are these 10K standing at our boarders just waiting for their symptoms before they come streaming in?

Some really paranoid people are spreading rumors of terrorists who are getting infected so they can start coughing all over food at salad bars.

Oh there is undeniably fear mongering.

But now there is something possibly even worse: People who confuse their politically correct rhetoric with enlightenment.

And the #'s are the #'s. Nothing has changed much in the daily growth rate now for months. It bumps up and down, but has been an average of 2.3% per day. With over 9k cases now, that means over 3M in a year unless we shake things up.


Like many other things an epidemic will soon reach a saturation point and have nowhere to spread beyond its origin as long as we do not get complacent and allow people with detectable signs of infection to infect others.

Lack of travel bands = complacency. Ebola isn't going to run out of possible hosts for a long, long time.


Instead we should focus on containment/isolation of the infected and proper handling of waste materials to prevent the spread of Ebola.

In the areas where Ebola is endemic there needs to be better education so people can avoid infection.

In our own nation it seems the staff and management at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas were woefully unprepared to care for such a case. Hopefully more of their workers will be spared the terror of contracting this disease.

Hopefully this will also serve as a wake up call to other health care providers on handling the patients and waste involved with not only Ebola but other infectious disease.

jtk

Again, taking someone's temperature is not containment or isolation.

[Jason Roehl]

I'm mostly with Phil on this--there is a disproportionate amount of panic and fear-mongering going on. Am I currently worried about Ebola? Not a bit. However, I think it's pretty clear that travel bans and containment are the ONLY policies that will keep it from becoming a major problem in the U.S. over the next year. Just check passports. Got a stamp from one of the affected West African countries? Sorry, you don't fly unless you've spent 21 days in an approved quarantine area set up in your country of origin.

Considering that the early symptoms of Ebola are similar to the flu, it's going to get ugly going into flu season unless we can definitively say that nobody in the U.S. has Ebola. Can you imagine what that will look like at every single E.R. in the country once the flu gets into full swing?

[Mark Bolton]

Will we ban travel home to the 3,000 or so U.S. soldiers and doctors who are currently in the areas where Ebola is endemic?


There has been talk that this concept alone is limiting the support from people in the medical field. They know that if this thing blows up they will be trapped outside the US and unable to get home. The answer is yes, if someone, no matter who it is, is possibly contaminated, they dont come in. Including POTUS

[Roger Feeley]

I think it only makes sense to follow the Mormon philosophy of 'providential living'. Mormons try to be prepared for natural disasters by keeping some emergency supplies on hand. Make no mistake here. I am not suggesting 'prepping'. For the Mormons (someone correct me if I'm wrong), it's more about not being a burden while the supply chains are re-established.

It's very reasonable to be prepared to hunker down for a few weeks. If, for instance, Ebola were to become a problem in your area, the smart play would be to just stay home. Could you do that for a couple of weeks while it burns itself out?

[Frank Drew]

Roger,

Sheltering in place (hunkering down at home) is a very reasonable response to certain kinds of infectious epidemics, particularly those with airborne transmission, and the experience of some U.S. cities vs others during the 1919-20 Spanish Flu pandemic bore that out. We're not there yet, and I hope we don't get there, but if we do we can't carry on business as usual.

[Phil Thien]

I think it only makes sense to follow the Mormon philosophy of 'providential living'. Mormons try to be prepared for natural disasters by keeping some emergency supplies on hand. Make no mistake here. I am not suggesting 'prepping'. For the Mormons (someone correct me if I'm wrong), it's more about not being a burden while the supply chains are re-established.

It's very reasonable to be prepared to hunker down for a few weeks. If, for instance, Ebola were to become a problem in your area, the smart play would be to just stay home. Could you do that for a couple of weeks while it burns itself out?

At least Sierra Leone has attempted (I think) one three day curfew. They provided advance notice so the population could stock up on staples. It ended Sep. 22 and although they thought then they may have turned the corner, it seems to have had little impact. Three days probably just isn't long enough.

[Keith Hankins]

Keith,

Apparently you missed the video linked earlier in this thread:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qj4X0MsQjM

This appears to be a straight forward piece by Shepard Smith (from FOX) saying this isn't the time to foment fear and panic among the American public.

Trying to point fingers of blame and spreading disinformation will not help in the effort to stop this disease.

We can do better tracking of people and the disease by not having travel bans. Travel bans will have possibly infected people going to another country without travel bans to travel to our shores without screening. Having protocols in place in the areas where Ebola is epidemic will do more to keep it from getting beyond its present confines.

If you want a fact that is scary, even a bit terrifying is we currently do not have a Surgeon General in the United States to form a coordinated response. This is due to political posturing and fear of big money being used against candidates.

To me these factors are currently a bigger threat to our lives and freedoms than a handful of Ebola cases caused by medical missteps that are now being addressed.

As the days advance on this, medical teams are being made aware of proper handling and procedures to deal with those who may have come into contact with Ebola infected patients.

We can take a reasoned approach to this challenge. The alternative is to scream and shout while running in circles and causing mass hysteria.

My choice is almost always to take the reasoned approach. Develop a plan and adjust it as needed.

jtk

Oh i'm sorry it's in print on the internet it must be true! Again, live in the fantasy land if you want.

[Mel Fulks]

I like the network shep smith is on ,but I think he is their weakest journalist. Just a sharp dresser with an unusual voice. His
ridicule and implied accusations toward the meter reader who had seen the remains of a child ,notified police and later
testified in the Casey Anthony case was outrageous and cruel. I hope to see a civil suit over it.

[Harold Burrell]

I cannot say that I am particularly "worried" about EBOLA, however...I have moved my casket project higher up on my to-do list.


;)

[David Weaver]

Phil, I agree with you on the travel restrictions. Even if people come from a different country than their flight origin, it shouldn't be that difficult to make sure they don't fly here without 21 days without any possible exposures, and if they do, put them on a plane and send them back.

We're a week on, and the two nurses are the only new infections despite a whole bunch of hysteria (not surprising, we have been told for a while what needs to happen for someone to get it).

However, I think with what we know, the set of rules has to be a little bit more restrictive until the other countries get a handle on it. We saw how easily TED gave it to two nurses who were not up to speed on protocol early on.

(and to mel's point, I never give any extra nod toward anyone delivering the news, unless it comes along with comedy. Otherwise, most of the folks providing the news are totally involved with self adulation, more sensitive to how people think about them than they are about getting things right, and often looking for the next way to drive ratings. I'd prefer to read the news).

[Pat Barry]

Good news on Ebola front that the family of the original Texas victim has now received the all clear after their 21 day confinement and can go back to their everyday lives. They were probably the most vulnerable American group and they are good so it does speak to the degree of contagiousness of Ebola for someone who is demonstrating a high temperature and not much else.

[Pat Barry]

I like the network shep smith is on ,but I think he is their weakest journalist. Just a sharp dresser with an unusual voice. His
ridicule and implied accusations toward the meter reader who had seen the remains of a child ,notified police and later
testified in the Casey Anthony case was outrageous and cruel. I hope to see a civil suit over it.
If the other Fox people were more like Shepard Smith I might even watch that channel.

[David Weaver]

Good news on Ebola front that the family of the original Texas victim has now received the all clear after their 21 day confinement and can go back to their everyday lives. They were probably the most vulnerable American group and they are good so it does speak to the degree of contagiousness of Ebola for someone who is demonstrating a high temperature and not much else.

Who knows what TED had in the apartment there. They know he was sweating profusely and vomiting outside of the apartment building, but whether or not he had diarrhea or any of the other very contagious symptoms, we probably won't know.

Luckily it sounds like nobody came in contact with an appreciable amount of any of it.

By the time the two nurses were exposed, his viral load was probably higher.

[Frank Drew]

By the time the two nurses were exposed, [Duncan's] viral load was probably higher.

Almost certainly.

The tricky thing with viral illnesses (well, one of the tricky things) is that it's really not possible to be absolutely precise when a patient will begin shedding the virus in significant amounts; for some patients it will only be when symptoms such as fever reach certain levels, but for others the viral shedding might begin earlier.

[Phil Thien]

There were two Ebola articles on the same page (I think about A5) in the WSJ this morning. Below the fold was an article about how travel bans would backfire. The reason: Nobody will take a chance on travelling to the ravaged areas to provide humanitarian relief if they can't get back home w/o being quarantined.

Right above the fold on the same page is an article about how they have already been having difficulty getting doctors and nurses to come, not because of a possible travel ban but because of the risks of exposure.

So it seems to me that we're going to have to kick in some do-re-mi as incentive. I'd also offer guaranteed medevac back to the states if a relief worker becomes ill. Maybe setup a hospital at a shuttered air force base?

The key is, I think, to fight it there.

[Keith Outten]

Honest journalism in the mass medial died and was burried a very long time ago. The mass media became a business whose number one interest was making money so they dumped the old values concerning reporting the facts. The Internet has just made the situation worse with too many amateur journalists mudding the waters without experience nor concern for the truth IMO.

Back in the 1970"s the media was reporting on Nuclear Power Plant Construction issues that they totally did not understand. They demonstrated a level of stupidity that was unbelievable, got all their stories mixed up with half truths and they never found out about the serious problems in the industry. Even today the media is still in the dark mostly because they don't have the knowledge or the expertise to understand the industry. The same thing happens in other situations when entertainment journalists put pen to paper and provide information on any number of complex industries.

What the mass media can do consistently is ask a parent how they feel when they have just lost a child......in my mind its a question that only an intellectual midget would ask and its a discusting insult.
.

[David Weaver]

So it seems to me that we're going to have to kick in some do-re-mi as incentive.

That's my thought from the beginning, that the missing link is monetary incentive, and it would take a little bit of leadership to actually get something like that done. I guess congress is in recess right now? And they can't be bothered to actually fix real problems. The amount of money that it would cost to do what we're talking about is minuscule. Just pass legislation making it illegal to fire someone who is in quarantine for ebola and pay their back wages out of federal dollars in the interim. I'll bet a year of those dollars would be less than a day's cost of a lot of other expenditures.

They could also very easily fly people back here on military transport instead of commercial (those coming from here actually going over there to do work). There's a million things they could do to make our odd better, and they don't require dynamic programming or something to figure out.

It seems like answers to the contrary really don't come out of reason, but they come out of some leadership directive of "we're not stopping flights, so you come up with an excuse why we're not, no matter how dumb it sounds".

[Jim Koepke]

Again, you just don't allow them a visa until they demonstrate 21 days of residency outside of an outbreak region.

What about those who already have a visa?

Who is going to set up this quarantine/mechanism in every nation/airport outside of the outbreak region?

We have a difficult time with our southern boarder. Shall we post guards every 10 feet with orders to shoot anyone who approaches?

If we could get every nation on earth to cooperate, then travel bans might be a viable option. We can not even get Congress to cooperate. If this was as terrible a threat as it is being made in to do you think maybe Congress would come back from their two month vacation a little early and pass travel bans into law?

As far as I know travel bans haven't been taken off the table.

jtk

[David Weaver]

Concern that it wouldn't limit every single person aren't really valid. It would eliminate a large proportion of people who could possibly bring ebola.

Functionally, that would mean that you can't come over here (because it would be up to someone else to set up a quarantine).

Who really has a stake in trying to keep that from occurring, the airline industry? This isn't a situation where you need perfection, as we've seen, you can handle small infections in a given country (Nigeria was just declared free of Ebola after having a small outbreak or a couple of small outbreaks). Do you put a restriction in place now, or do you wait until you're nearly overwhelmed?

We're not talking about restricting flying from the UK, from Germany, Canada or whatever else, just from the places that have a significant problem with Ebola.

If the two nurses get past their cases and we don't have anyone currently infected in the US, the whole thing will become yesterday's news, and we probably won't learn anything until more people come back infected, and then it will be hyteria again.

[David Weaver]

What the mass media can do consistently is ask a parent how they feel when they have just lost a child......in my mind its a question that only an intellectual midget would ask and its a discusting insult.
.

I never watch the local news just because of questions like that. they find the person who is at their lowest and then stick a camera in their face and try to get them to talk as much as possible. It's between that and the toothless type who follows the cameras around at each scene in a ripped dirty T-shirt (if your local news is like mine, you know what I mean - there must be people in each neighborhood who search out the camera and try to get an interview when something is going on in their area of the city).

I don't know if the local news was always like that, we used to watch it pretty intently when I was a kid, and then the national news, but the internet brings more thorough news and faster if you're enough of a skeptic to be able to filter out the garbage. And nobody holds your time hostage putting you through 10 minutes of trash news to get to something relevant to you. It's also, I think, moved the bar higher for newscasters to actually be correct at a high news level (like network news), because if you're not, it will be found out quickly.

When I was a kid, when we went to my grandmother's house, when the national news was on, you were not allowed to do anything to interrupt it. The personalities providing it were almost regarded as infallible. I guess that was a carry-over from the depression era when people listened to the radio after dinner. In most cases, the national news anchor could inject opinion or twist the news a little bit and nobody knew different because there was no source to know different.

[Jim Koepke]

It seems like answers to the contrary really don't come out of reason, but they come out of some leadership directive of "we're not stopping flights, so you come up with an excuse why we're not, no matter how dumb it sounds".

For a bit of reason on this topic, try the Mayo Clinic:

Ebola and Marburg hemorrhagic fevers are difficult to diagnose because early signs and symptoms resemble those of other diseases, such as typhoid and malaria. If doctors suspect you have Ebola or Marburg viruses, they use blood tests to quickly identify the virus, including:

Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)
Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (PCR)
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention monitors the United States for conditions such as Ebola infection, and its labs can test for the Ebola virus.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/ebola-virus/basics/definition/con-20031241

With care, knowledge and proper procedures we should be able to avoid epidemic outbreaks in the developed world.

Fear and hysteria will not protect anyone.

jtk

[David Weaver]

That's fine, but stopping flights from infected areas is not hysteria, it's just bad for the airline business and creates some additional work.

It literally would have stopped the only person who has infected anyone in the united states so far.

[Jim Koepke]

That's fine, but stopping flights from infected areas is not hysteria, it's just bad for the airline business and creates some additional work.

It literally would have stopped the only person who has infected anyone in the united states so far.

Maybe I missed something. Was there talk of travel bans before he arrived? How would he have been prevented from traveling to another country before coming to the U.S.?

How would a travel ban be imposed? Would it be a Presidential edict or would it have to be an act of Congress?

A travel ban will only work if it is applied by every nation on the face of the earth. In fact I agree that anyone showing symptoms of any contagious disease should be denied from any form of public transit. I do not even care if it is a case of the sniffles, I do not want to catch it from someone who thinks, "it is not a big deal."

If this is so important, why is Congress still out of session? I see a lot of politicians on TV telling us something needs to be done. So if Congress doesn't think it is important enough to cut their vacation short, who is supposed to be doing the doing? The President who catches flack every time he issues and Executive Order? The non-Surgeon General who they blocked from being confirmed?

Proper procedures would have also prevented the infections in Dallas. Unfortunately there weren't any procedures followed or properly in place at that time.

Hindsight is usually 20/20. Hopefully our medical providers have learned a lesson from this mishap and we will have better handling of this from now on.

jtk

[David Weaver]

Yes, there was talk of travel bans before TED arrived, and they happened at company levels where folks were not allowed to travel to certain areas. The early focus was on the economic impact that travel bans might have.

It's hard to find much on google because there's been so much talk about travel bans in the last month that it dominates results, but you can fairly easily find articles from august.

I think you're missing the point about travel bans, and deciding that if it can't work 100%, that even if it's 95%, that it's not worth doing it (my percentages and not yours). You don't fail to limit exposure just because you can't eliminate it, that's irrational. If you're making the argument that you don't want the travel ban because you don't want the ban itself, that's one thing, but to claim that it would make the outbreak worse in liberia or not prevent anything in the US is false.

The travel ban should come through congress, as a law, or whatever means necessary. It doesn't have to be political - that's a waste of time. I'm not interested in who gets what blame or the politics, this is a mechanical issue.

[Jim Koepke]

I think you're missing the point about travel bans, and deciding that if it can't work 100%, that even if it's 95%, that it's not worth doing it (my percentages and not yours).

In my opinion a travel ban would be even less than 50% effective. Most likely people trying to evade a travel ban would spread the infection over a wider area.


The travel ban should come through congress

Good luck with that. Besides for them their two month vacation seems to be more important than creating legislation of any kind at the moment. My guess is they know it is mostly hysteria and are using it for their own advantage politically.

From the New Yorker magazine:


Tracy Klugian, thirty-one, briefly came into contact with alarmist Ebola hearsay during a visit to the Akron-Canton airport, where a CNN report about Ebola was showing on one of the televisions in the airport bar. “Mr. Klugian is believed to have been exposed to cable news for no more than ten minutes, but long enough to become infected,” a spokesman for the C.D.C. said. “Within an hour, he was showing signs of believing that an Ebola outbreak in the United States was inevitable and unstoppable.”

Once Klugian’s condition was apparent, the Ohio man was rushed to a public library and given a seventh-grade biology textbook, at which point he “started to stabilize,” the spokesman said.

jtk

[David Weaver]

I'm not sure why the New Yorker would limit their commentary to cable news. How about blogs, newspapers, radio, network TV...

Take a look at the travel restrictions in South Africa and countries local to africa and see if they think their travel ban is only 50%. It's extremely unlikely that it would perform that poorly, just as the argument that it would get worse due to a travel ban from us is farce. A legislative stroke of the pen would put charter planes or military transport in service to move aid workers to and from affected areas.

[Pat Barry]

From the New Yorker magazine:
New Yorker has to be the single publication with its nose stuck highest up in the air of any other. They are so funny (to themselves), everything is an inside, elitist joke.

[David Weaver]

This is an ideal situation for them, they can look out the rearview mirror, poke fun at people after the fact and then pretend they're above it all.

If someone in their editorial room was living two apartments over from someone who went to the hospital symptomatic, they probably wouldn't think it was as funny.

It might look like I'm playing two sides of the coin here, because I have been critical of anyone getting hysterical about what is or what might be but one thing is not in doubt, and that is that people who are symptomatic can give other people ebola. Keeping non-citizens out of the country, those who may become symptomatic, is just common sense unless there are economic reasons that outweigh the human reasons (and there probably are if infected people arrive only one or two at a time but don't infect any or many other people in the interim).

As it stands now, Nina Pham has been downgraded from good to fair condition. That's probably typical for someone who has ebola as it does damage, but how would we know? It's a shame that she has to be in that situation in the first place. I hope she makes it. (For those who are nurses or docs, does anyone know a typical duration after someone becomes symptomatic but survives?)

(just looked it up - medscape - whatever that is - says 10-25 days of duration from onset of symptoms to discharge after recovery).

[Jim Koepke]

A legislative stroke of the pen would put charter planes or military transport in service to move aid workers to and from affected areas.

Our legislative branch is off on vacation. Apparently they do not think this is as big a threat as the usual suspects have whipped the general public in to a frenzy to believe. Even some of the politicians have been doing the fear mongering in hopes of furthering their own gain.


I'm not sure why the New Yorker would limit their commentary to cable news. How about blogs, newspapers, radio, network TV...

The New Yorker piece was satire. It is trying to point to the absolute nonsense of getting all worked up about something that hasn't caused nor is it about to cause the deaths of thousands of Americans.

Hurricane Sandy caused more than 100 deaths in the U.S. That is more than Ebola has so far, but not much is being done to protect us from future super storms.

Guns kill about 30 people a day in the U.S. Again, that is more than Ebola. Why aren't we doing something about that?

Our political system has become one of "pay to play." Who is going to pay our representatives in Congress and the Senate to pass such legislation?

More likely as you have suggested the interests of the big airlines not wanting a travel ban, they might have already paid Congress to do nothing.

jtk

[David Weaver]

Our legislative branch is off on vacation. Apparently they do not think this is as big a threat as the usual suspects have whipped the general public in to a frenzy to believe. Even some of the politicians have been doing the fear mongering in hopes of furthering their own gain.



The New Yorker piece was satire. It is trying to point to the absolute nonsense of getting all worked up about something that hasn't caused nor is it about to cause the deaths of thousands of Americans.

Hurricane Sandy caused more than 100 deaths in the U.S. That is more than Ebola has so far, but not much is being done to protect us from future super storms.

Guns kill about 30 people a day in the U.S. Again, that is more than Ebola. Why aren't we doing something about that?

Our political system has become one of "pay to play." Who is going to pay our representatives in Congress and the Senate to pass such legislation?

More likely as you have suggested the interests of the big airlines not wanting a travel ban, they might have already paid Congress to do nothing.

jtk

You are comparing something that is a domestic issue to something that involves people who are not citizens. It's irrelevant. No country gives the same rights to non-citizens as it gives to citizens.

[Jim Koepke]

You are comparing something that is a domestic issue to something that involves people who are not citizens. It's irrelevant. No country gives the same rights to non-citizens as it gives to citizens.

Would we ban travel from infected areas to anyone who isn't a U.S. citizen?

So American citizens who may have been infected would not be banned from travel?

Not only would the machinations of a travel ban be difficult to enforce, it would likely be easy to get around.

It will likely be as difficult if not more so to get legislative action to institute a travel ban than it would be to enforce one.

With the news of people who were in contact with an infected person coming off of a 21 day quarantine, maybe we can now get to making choices based on science instead of mass hysteria.

jtk

[Larry Edgerton]

I'm flying out to Maryland Wednesday, I'll let you know in 21 days how it worked out.......

I think I'll stop by the gift shop at Metro and get some of those Ebola cough drops.......

Larry

[David Weaver]

Would we ban travel from infected areas to anyone who isn't a U.S. citizen?

So American citizens who may have been infected would not be banned from travel?

Not only would the machinations of a travel ban be difficult to enforce, it would likely be easy to get around.

It will likely be as difficult if not more so to get legislative action to institute a travel ban than it would be to enforce one.

With the news of people who were in contact with an infected person coming off of a 21 day quarantine, maybe we can now get to making choices based on science instead of mass hysteria.

jtk

You're sidestepping the issue. Sure, ban any citizen or put them under monitoring if they come back, write it any way you want to. The travel ban has been effective in guinea and Nigeria, I have no idea why anyone would think it wouldn't be here.

I'll stick to my comment that "a travel ban making the disease worse" has nothing at all to do with why there's a travel ban.

[Pat Barry]

I'm flying out to Maryland Wednesday, I'll let you know in 21 days how it worked out.......

I think I'll stop by the gift shop at Metro and get some of those Ebola cough drops.......

Larry
Just a word of warning. Do NOT joke about Ebola in the airports or on the airplanes. Folks might tend to overreeact and want to quarantine you for 21 days.

[Jason Roehl]

Liberia and the other West African nations currently suffering outbreaks aren't exactly international flight hubs. Flights in and out of those countries only go to a few places, so a little diplomatic leaning on those connected nations could go a long, long ways to keeping things contained.

[Joel Goodman]

I have a friend who is an epidemiologist at a major hospital -- the Texas infections were caused by lack of proper procedures and training. To suit up and take off the protective gear takes training and two people -- the one suiting up and the person who is watching and making sure the protocol is followed correctly. One hopes that the word has spread about this! Also the CDC is I believe taking a more active role. We are all at much greater risk driving to work....

[Jim Koepke]

Well, it's not that transmittable. I was talking to a neighbor yesterday, and I'd say find a resort that's just closed due to financial issues and put the people in it. If they get a fever, fly them to one of the expert treatment hospitals and it's solved. The remaining folks could literally have their own rooms or several rooms at such a resort, even if there are hundreds of them, and they would not be exposed to each other. Give them the tools to take their own temperatures and have someone take their temperatures once a day.

That's easier to do right now than it would be with a lot of people.

What would such a just-closed resort cost - $50 million? Just pay it. I'll bet you could literally set up a federal paypal account and people in the US would donate enough to do it.

But get some federal agencies involved and nobody wants to be the person to green light such a thing. They make decisions in weeks, not minutes, and those are small individual decisions. It's clear that many of the folks have a reflexive reaction to place blame on someone else, because they feel they don't have any authority to do anything and thus don't want to take blame, even when they're at fault. I would expect that in a society like ours where information flows freely and academic type folks should be in charge of places like the CDC that have complex fluid problems to deal with that the last thing we would get is political blame-gaming (and I don't mean partisan, I mean spinning blame to someone else) when those folks talk on TV, but it's clear that the messages from everyone, from the hospital to the agency heads are very carefully crafted. Now is not the time for that.

How many people do you think would actually volunteer to be "imprisoned" in a deserted resort?

How about we teach medical people and law enforcement a little bit about the geography of Africa?

The hysteria is running rampant and we have politicians trying to use the fear to advance their positions.

Here is the latest from Tucson, AZ:

http://tucson.com/news/local/tucson-pastor-gets-a-m-ebola-check-from-tpd/article_bc644951-b096-5c20-8ff9-13995cfe9da5.html

Maybe a little education about geography, diseases and how they are spread would be better than quarantining all the usual suspects.

jtk

[Phil Thien]

How many people do you think would actually volunteer to be "imprisoned" in a deserted resort?

How about we teach medical people and law enforcement a little bit about the geography of Africa?

The hysteria is running rampant and we have politicians trying to use the fear to advance their positions.

Here is the latest from Tucson, AZ:

http://tucson.com/news/local/tucson-pastor-gets-a-m-ebola-check-from-tpd/article_bc644951-b096-5c20-8ff9-13995cfe9da5.html

Maybe a little education about geography, diseases and how they are spread would be better than quarantining all the usual suspects.

jtk

Canada imposed travel restrictions this last week. That is a smart, common-sense approach. Because the Canadians evaluated the situation and came to the only logical conclusion: When containment is the approach that works, you contain.

If we could go back in time, before Ebola made it to the densely populated cities in W. Africa, wouldn't we work harder to contain? Of course we would, we'd love a do-over, we'd love to prevent Ebola from hitting those cities.

Everything else is simply politically-correct mumbo jumbo. Again, I urge people to not confuse the PC rhetoric for enlightenment, they aren't one and the same.

[David Weaver]

Everything else is simply politically-correct mumbo jumbo. Again, I urge people to not confuse the PC rhetoric for enlightenment, they aren't one and the same.

I agree. The biggest hurdle in the third world seems to be skepticism by people who have no ability to analyze anything (because they're uneducated and superstitious), and they think the government is lying to them or they don't trust that they're getting the entire truth. Thus, they perpetuate the problem by coming in contact with symptomatic people.

Those same people will get on a plane and come here. That's that. We had a symptomatic doctor in NY who lied also and could have infected someone. It doesn't look so far like he did, but he's just another example. Medical workers who come back should be quarantined 21 days since their last exposure. It simply works. Nothing else necessarily does. The fact that the issue has become political is just stupid. It's a simple problem with a simple solution, and if people don't like being quarantined, by all means pay them for their quarantine time if they were exposed as a medical worker or as an obligation of their job (for anyone doing business in those countries).

But for everyone else, ban them from coming in from hot zones and quarantine (mandatory) anyone else who's not from a hot zone but who had significant exposure.....at least until people in the third world get their heads on straight and start following protocol.